Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. A.W.Fijjies and Co. and Ors.

24 ITR 405Supreme Court of India1953#12505 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 127 Section 143(3)Section 2(7A)Section 253

Issues it is cited on

section 158bc section 158b section 158 section 153c section 26 section 115 section 153 section 27 section 153a section 15 section 132 section 11

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. A.W.Fijjies and Co. and Ors.

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

…art from the partners constituting it for the time being, being only a compendious name and manner of referring to them together (N. Khadervali Saheb & Anr. (Decd. by LRs.) v.N. Gudu Sahib (Decd.) & Ors. [2003] 261 ITR 1 (SC); CIT v. A.W. Figgies & Co. [1953] 24 ITR 405 (SC)). Could, as posed by the Bench during hearing, any of it’s partners take a stand in the hearing of 6 Parayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan (Decd.) v. Dy. CIT the firm that he has not been heard in the matter, and that there has thus been violation of the principles of natural justice? To no answer by Shri Suresh. When the notice of hearing is iss…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…es. The search carried out at the premises of the partners cannot be equated with the search against the partnership firm. In this context, the learned Counsel relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. A. W. Figgies&Co. [1953] 24 ITR 405. (iii) Counsel further submitted that the objection of limitation of the Department is wholly fallacious. Section 124 of the Act relates to territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The time limit provided under sub- section (3) of Section 124, therefore, must be seen in the light of such issue. Vi. In the light of the above peculiar fact…

TARLOK SINGH PUNIHANI,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-19 NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 1746/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

…of the firm M/s Punihani International. The present assessee is a partner of the said firm. It would be imperative to understand the legal status of a ‘partnership firm’ and a ‘partner’. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. A.W Figgies & Co. 24 ITR 405 had the occasion to consider this aspect and held as under: “It is true that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from its partners and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partners but it is also equally true that under that law there is no dissolution of the firm by the mere incoming or outgoing of partner…

NARINDER SINGH PUNIHANI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19,NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 1745/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

M/S. SHREE SAI ENTERPRISES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri N.R.BiswalFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 156Section 269SSection 271D

…n between the firm and the partners are not governed by the provisions of Section 269-SS and 269-T of the Act. 12. At the same time, we note that the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. A.W.Fijjies and Co. and Ors. [1953] 24 ITR 405(SC), held that the partners of the firm are P a g e 10 | 15 ITA No. 2 90/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear: 2 014 -20 15 distinct as a civil entities while the firm as such is a separate and distinct unit for the purpose of assessment. 13. The question raised is whether in a transaction between the firm and the partner the provision of Section 269SS…

SH. VIKRANT KANSHAL,BATHINDA vs. THE ICNOMET-AX OFFICER,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…in Shanti Devi (supra), as its’ reading shows, was whether the books of account of an assessee-firm could in law be considered as the books of account of a partner. A partner, it was explained with reference to the decision in CIT v. A.W. Figgies & Co. [1953] 24 ITR 405 (SC), to be a separate assessable entity. The Hon'ble Court, after a reference to the provisions of sections 68 and 69, being cognate, held that the books of account referred to in section 68 are of the assessee and not of any other (partner). The credit (to the partners’ account) being in the books of the partnership firm, addition qua the said s…

SHOREWALA OVERSEAS,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 5634/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Repudaman Thakur, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 5

…of expenditure made by the AO was justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs M/s Muthoot Financiers (2015) 371 ITR 408 (Del.) 11 S.A. No. 514/Del/20176 Shorewala Overseas " CIT, West Bengal Vs A. W. Fijjies and Co. & Ors. (1953) 24 ITR 405 (SC) " CIT Vs Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377 (Del.) " DCIT Vs Haryana Oxygen Ltd. (2001) 76 ITD 32 (Del. – Trib.) 19. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made by them in their respective orders. 20. I have considered the submissions of both the part…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. M/S MUTHOOT FINANCIERS,NEW DELHI.

ITA - 336 / 2002HC Delhi03 Feb 2015

Section 148Section 260Section 269Section 271

…ween the firm and the partners are not governed by the provisions of Section 269-SS and 269-T of the Act. 12. At the same time, we note that the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. A.W.Fijjies and Co. and Ors. [1953] 24 ITR 405(SC), held that the partners of the firm are distinct as a civil entities while the firm as such is a separate and distinct 2015:DHC:1047-DB ITA No.336/2002 & connected matters Page 14 of 19 unit for the purpose of assessment. 13. The question raised is w…