CIT v. Tibruz Mustafa\nBilgen

157 ITR 723High Court1986#19311 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 194JSection 2(47)Section 234BSection 35ABB

Issues it is cited on

section 35abbsection 39section 47section 43(1)demergersection 92ca(1)deduction under section 80iasection 2(47)block of assetsbusiness expediencyeligible businessenduring benefit

Judgments citing CIT v. Tibruz Mustafa\nBilgen

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

…a company is an artificial juridical person with a separate legal entity of its own, unless the Corporate Veil is lifted by court orders. The case of the assessee is that of a real gift and not deemed gift as in the case of CIT V. Tibruz Mustafa Bilgen (1986) 157 ITR 723 (Mad), the Hon'ble Medras High Court has held that section 47(iii) applies only to real gift and not deemed gift. Therefore, the action of the AO in disallowing depreciation on passive Infrastructure Assets (PI) is held by the panel to be not tenable and the AO is therefore directed to delete the said addition." (Emphasis Supplied) 8.6 We are in…

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

…a company is an artificial juridical person with a separate legal entity of its own, unless the Corporate Veil is lifted by court orders. The case of the assessee is that of a real gift and not deemed gift as in the case of CIT V. Tibruz Mustafa Bilgen (1986) 157 ITR 723 (Mad), the Hon'ble Medras High Court has held that section 47(iii) applies only to real gift and not deemed gift. Therefore, the action of the AO in disallowing depreciation on passive Infrastructure Assets (PI) is held by the panel to be not tenable and the AO is therefore directed to delete the said addition." (Emphasis Supplied) 8.6 We are in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…a company is an artificial juridical person with a separate legal entity of its own, unless the Corporate Veil is lifted by court orders. The case of the assessee is that of a real gift and not deemed gift as in the case of CIT V. Tibruz Mustafa Bilgen (1986) 157 ITR 723 (Mad), the Hon'ble Medras High Court has held that section 47(iii) applies only to real gift and not deemed gift. Therefore, the action of the AO in disallowing depreciation on passive Infrastructure Assets (PI) is held by the panel to be not tenable and the AO is therefore directed to delete the said addition.” (Emphasis Supplied) 8.6. We are in…

Vodafone Digilink Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…a company is an artificial juridical person with a separate legal entity of its own, unless the Corporate Veil is lifted by court orders. The case of the assessee is that of a real gift and not deemed gift as in the case of CIT V. Tibruz Mustafa Bilgen (1986) 157 ITR 723 (Mad), the Hon'ble Medras High Court has held that section 47(iii) applies only to real gift and not deemed gift. Therefore, the action of the AO in disallowing depreciation on passive Infrastructure Assets (PI) is held by the panel to be not tenable and the AO is therefore directed to delete the said addition.” (Emphasis Supplied) 8. 6. We are…

CIT v. Tibruz Mustafa\nBilgen (157 ITR 723) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax