DCIT v. T.Jayachandran

406 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2018#8648 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing DCIT v. T.Jayachandran

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…s. Pepsu Road Transport Corpn.253 ITR 303 (Punj. & 5 Har.) 12 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co., 106 ITR 884 (Bom.) 23 P a g e 4 | 59 Assessment Year : 2015-16 13 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chetnavis (SM) AIR 1932 1 PC 178 14 DCIT vs. T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) 13 15 Dy.CIT v. Mrs. Lakshmi M.Aiyar (2011) 131 1TD 436 11 (Mum) 16 E. D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) 4 17 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CLT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 2 18 Gujarat Municipal Finance Board vs. Dy. CIT (Assessment) 6 221 ITR 317 (Guj.) 19 Indermani Jatia vs. CIT 35 ITR 298 (SC) 5 K. | P. Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 59…

CHURCH OF CHRIST ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-4, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1688/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Church Of Christ, Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad. (Exemptions)-4, Pan: Aabtc 3506 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By Sri D.J. Prabhakar Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…he Hon’ble Privy Council in the case Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal reported in [1993] 1 ITR 135; Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas 41 ITR 367 (SC); Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madras Race Club [1996] 219 ITR 39 (Mad.). It is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has enlightened the concept of “diversion of income by overriding title” keeping in view of the decisions of the Higher Judiciaries cited hereinabove and if those principles are not adhered the provisio…

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…10) CIT v. A. Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 1 (Del) (13) Shroff Eye Centre v. ACIT in ITA No.1560/Del/2012 (14) DCIT v. Sri T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) (15) A F Ferguson & Co. v. ACIT, Mumbai 2011-TIOL-604-ITAT- MUM. (16) RSM & Co. v. ACIT, 125 ITD 243 (Mum) 24. The ld. AR submitted that from all the aforesaid judicial pronouncements the following principles may be discerned:- • Where by the obligation, receipt is diverted before it reaches the assessee, it does not form ‘income’ of an asses…

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…10) CIT v. A. Tosh & Sons (P) Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 867 (Cal) (11) F.R. Sabu P Thomas v. UOI, 2015-TIOL-514-HC-Kerala-IT (12) CIT v. DTTDC Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 1 (Del) (13) Shroff Eye Centre v. ACIT in ITA No.1560/Del/2012 (14) DCIT v. Sri T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) (15) A F Ferguson & Co. v. ACIT, Mumbai 2011-TIOL-604-ITAT- MUM. (16) RSM & Co. v. ACIT, 125 ITD 243 (Mum) 24. The ld. AR submitted that from all the aforesaid judicial pronouncements the following principles may be discerned:- • Where by the obligation, receipt is diverted before it reaches the assessee, it does not form ‘income’ of an asses…

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…italdas Tirathdas reported in (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) ii. Poona Electric supply Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC). iii. Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain vs CIT (1991) 190 ITR 1 (SC). iv. CIT vs Modipon Ltd., (2018) 400 ITR 1 (SC). v. CIT vs TJayavhandran (2018) 406 ITR 1(SC). vi. Pr.CIT vs Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., SLP (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17347/2019. vii. Pr.CIT vs Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITA 940/2016(DEL) dated 17/05/2018. viii. CIT vs United Breweries Ltd (2010) 321 ITR 4546 (KARN.). ix. CIT vs Pandavapura Sahakara karkhane Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR 475 (KARN). x. CIT vs Pandavapura Sahakara karkhane Ltd. (1992)…

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…paid an amount of Rs. 4.25 crores to remove that impediment and hence, it is a diversion of income by overriding title. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. T.Jayachandran reported in (2018) 406 ITR 1(SC) and submitted that only real income of the assessee can be brought to tax and this amount of Rs. 4.25 Crs. has to be treated as an expenditure u/s.48(1) of the 1961 Act and is not taxable and it was submitted that it was rightly excluded by assessee while computing income of the assessee. It was ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chn…

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…paid an amount of Rs. 4.25 crores to remove that impediment and hence, it is a diversion of income by overriding title. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. T.Jayachandran reported in (2018) 406 ITR 1(SC) and submitted that only real income of the assessee can be brought to tax and this amount of Rs. 4.25 Crs. has to be treated as an expenditure u/s.48(1) of the 1961 Act and is not taxable and it was submitted that it was rightly excluded by assessee while computing income of the assessee. It was ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chn…

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…paid an amount of Rs. 4.25 crores to remove that impediment and hence, it is a diversion of income by overriding title. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. T.Jayachandran reported in (2018) 406 ITR 1(SC) and submitted that only real income of the assessee can be brought to tax and this amount of Rs. 4.25 Crs. has to be treated as an expenditure u/s.48(1) of the 1961 Act and is not taxable and it was submitted that it was rightly excluded by assessee while computing income of the assessee. It was ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chn…

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…paid an amount of Rs. 4.25 crores to remove that impediment and hence, it is a diversion of income by overriding title. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. T.Jayachandran reported in (2018) 406 ITR 1(SC) and submitted that only real income of the assessee can be brought to tax and this amount of Rs. 4.25 Crs. has to be treated as an expenditure u/s.48(1) of the 1961 Act and is not taxable and it was submitted that it was rightly excluded by assessee while computing income of the assessee. It was ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chn…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PRASAD & CO. (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal and Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3646/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu,Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyc.O. No.299/Del/2016 (In Ita No.3646/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Prasad & Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle – 13, W-149, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp4487H & Ita No.3646/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Prasad & Co. P. Ltd., Ward 19 (3), New Delhi. W-149, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp4487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Goel, Cit Dr Assessee By: Shri Manoj Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…from the earlier years in which the same was accepted, now it is not open for the revenue to contend that the liability is ceased and such amount becomes the income of the assessee. Learned AR placed reliance on the decision of DCIT vs T. Jayachandran (2018) 406 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the assessee holds the amount payable to the clients in fiduciary capacity as such, the liability of limitation has no application to the facts of the case. He also placed reliance on certain other decisions in support of this principle. 16. Learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied upon the order of AO and submitted that t…

M/S PRASAD & CO. PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal and Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3153/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu,Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyc.O. No.299/Del/2016 (In Ita No.3646/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Prasad & Co. P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle – 13, W-149, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp4487H & Ita No.3646/Del/2016) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Prasad & Co. P. Ltd., Ward 19 (3), New Delhi. W-149, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp4487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Goel, Cit Dr Assessee By: Shri Manoj Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…from the earlier years in which the same was accepted, now it is not open for the revenue to contend that the liability is ceased and such amount becomes the income of the assessee. Learned AR placed reliance on the decision of DCIT vs T. Jayachandran (2018) 406 ITR 1 (SC) to contend that the assessee holds the amount payable to the clients in fiduciary capacity as such, the liability of limitation has no application to the facts of the case. He also placed reliance on certain other decisions in support of this principle. 16. Learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied upon the order of AO and submitted that t…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…ome, but for and on behalf of the person to whom it is payable.” 44. In a recent decision rendered in April 2018, the Two Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai Vs. T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) upholding the decision of the Madras High Court reported in [2013] 263 CTR 629 (Mad) dealt with an interesting case of a Share Broker who was working on behalf of the Indian Bank and got only his Commission Income but was sought to be taxed for the gross receipts for the sale of Shares and Securities dealt with by him Date of Judgment…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…ome, but for and on behalf of the person to whom it is payable.” 44. In a recent decision rendered in April 2018, the Two Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai Vs. T. Jayachandran [2018] 406 ITR 1 (SC) upholding the decision of the Madras High Court reported in [2013] 263 CTR 629 (Mad) dealt with an interesting case of a Share Broker who was working on behalf of the Indian Bank and got only his Commission Income but was sought to be taxed for the gross receipts for the sale of Shares and Securities dealt with by him Date of Judgment…