CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala

259 ITR 10Supreme Court of India2003#4652 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala authority for?

Income that is passed on to a third party after receipt, in discharge of an obligation, is considered an application of income, not a diversion of income.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala · application of income · diversion of income · discharge of obligation · section 10(20A) · section 10(20) · section 11 · section 12 · section 12AA

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 12AA
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 10(20)advancement of general public utilitysection 58purposive interpretationsection 12aa(3)section 60section 13(8)corpus fundsection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)cancellation of registration

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 999/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R

…dation Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee has also relied upon the followings decisions: i) Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria vs. CIT (1 ITR 135) ii) CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) iii) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) and others. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has considered the above decisions and held that this is not a case of diversion by overriding title as the amounts paid to Tulsi Foundation Trust are out of income received by the company and later paid out. No business expediency has been explained for diversion of income to…

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R

…dation Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee has also relied upon the followings decisions: i) Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria vs. CIT (1 ITR 135) ii) CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) iii) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) and others. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has considered the above decisions and held that this is not a case of diversion by overriding title as the amounts paid to Tulsi Foundation Trust are out of income received by the company and later paid out. No business expediency has been explained for diversion of income to…

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R

…dation Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee has also relied upon the followings decisions: i) Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria vs. CIT (1 ITR 135) ii) CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) iii) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) and others. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has considered the above decisions and held that this is not a case of diversion by overriding title as the amounts paid to Tulsi Foundation Trust are out of income received by the company and later paid out. No business expediency has been explained for diversion of income to…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 Series 14I, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…diverted by overriding title on the specific wording of the document that the amount was to be paid by the assessee from the income of the assessee and therefore the cited decision is not applicable in the present case on hand. (v) CIT vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala 259 ITR 10 (SC) This decision turned on its peculiar facts and is not applicable to the case under consideration. (vi) Associated Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (218 ITR 195) (SC) In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there was no diversion of income as the assessee is in control of the money and merely because restriction was put on use of the money could n…

Minaxi Kishore Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7871/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Mrs. Minaxi Kishore Mehta, Ito Ward 21(1), B-21, 3Rd Floor, Paritosh Kapole Bandra, Mumbai. Society, Vile Parle, West, Vs. Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aajpm2912L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Firoz B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri U.B.Jakke (DR)
Section 2(47)Section 48Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mrs. Minaxi Kishore Mehta, ITO Ward 21(1), B-21, 3rd Floor, Paritosh Kapole Bandra, Mumbai. Society, Vile Parle, West, Vs. Mumbai-400049. PAN: AAJPM2912L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Firoz B. Andhyarujina (AR) Revenue by : Shri U.B.Jakke (DR) Date of hearing : 05.04.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 13.04.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-32, Mumbai dated 2…