E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

26 ITR 27Supreme Court of India1954#326 most cited

What is E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income is taxable only when it represents real income, not notional income. It accrues only when there is a vested right to receive it, typically upon the occurrence of a transfer or event, rather than merely on a time basis.

256

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2026.

Also referred to as

E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 26 ITR 27 · Supreme Court · real income principle · notional income · income accrual · right to receive income · section 48 · capital gains computation · timing of tax liability · mercantile system · section 145

Also reported as

1 SCR 313

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 48Section 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

right to receivesection 145(2)mercantile system of accountingsection 48section 45section 34liable to taxbook profitsprofits and gains of business or professionsection 145section 115jrevenue expenditure

Judgments citing E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Nokia Corporation vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)

ITA 2137/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhatt, CIT(DR)
Section 44D

…created in favour of the assessee by somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC), CIT v. Messrs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC). Further, the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT reported in [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) which has been relied upon by…

Nokia Corporation vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)

ITA 2136/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhatt, CIT(DR)
Section 44D

…created in favour of the assessee by somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC), CIT v. Messrs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC). Further, the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT reported in [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) which has been relied upon by…

Nokia Corporation vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)

ITA 2135/DEL/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G.K.Dhatt, CIT(DR)
Section 44D

…created in favour of the assessee by somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC), CIT v. Messrs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC). Further, the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT reported in [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) which has been relied upon by…

M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1172/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5

…ssment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd 5.1. We also find that the reliance placed by the ld. D/R on the judgement in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC), is also misplaced as the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a case where the assessee had acquired the right to receive the income. In the case on hand, the assessee had no right to receive the income. 6. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the contention of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the retention mone…

M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1171/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5

…ssment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd 5.1. We also find that the reliance placed by the ld. D/R on the judgement in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC), is also misplaced as the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a case where the assessee had acquired the right to receive the income. In the case on hand, the assessee had no right to receive the income. 6. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the contention of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the retention mone…

M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1170/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5

…ssment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd 5.1. We also find that the reliance placed by the ld. D/R on the judgement in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC), is also misplaced as the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a case where the assessee had acquired the right to receive the income. In the case on hand, the assessee had no right to receive the income. 6. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the contention of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the retention mone…

M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1169/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd…….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….……...Appellant 41, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaecs 0445 G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kolkata……....................…….…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Parakh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 23/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. We Have Heard Shri Pankaj Parekh, Fca, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R On Behalf Of The Revenue. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 5

…ssment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd 5.1. We also find that the reliance placed by the ld. D/R on the judgement in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC), is also misplaced as the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a case where the assessee had acquired the right to receive the income. In the case on hand, the assessee had no right to receive the income. 6. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the contention of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the retention mone…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara vs. M/S. Vadodara Enviro Channel Project Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 766/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.766/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri M.S.A. Khan, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Shah, AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4(1)Section 5(1)(a)Section 5(1)(b)Section 9(1)(i)

…offered for tax in last 22 years whereas 40% was offered to be taxed in first three years. Revenue sought to tax entire receipt in the year of receipt. Hon. Special Bench referred to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) and referred to observation of their Lordships on page 52 of 26 ITR, wherein the Hon. Apex Court observed that unless and until managing agents complete their performance, viz., the completion of the definite period of service of a year which was a condition precedent to their being entitled to receive the remuneration or commission stipulated…

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…the assessee, which could only be on the sale of land or rights therein, including the certainty of the receipt, with the possession itself in dispute. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions, inter alia, in E.D. Sasoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC); CIT v. Shoorji (AY 2012-13) ITO v. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa Vallabh Das & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 44 (SC); Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC); CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC). There is, however, no dispute qua the purchase or acquisition of the land by the assessee along with others. We have already held that the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal of the ld AO is dismissed

ITA 732/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Sistema Shyam Circle-23(2), Teleservices Ltd, New Delhi A-60, Naraina Industrial Area-I, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs1709H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…he course and accordingly accounted in the books of accounts and income tax returns. We would clarify that the assessee therein was following mercantile system of accounting. Reference was made to E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) to observe as under:- “12. Section 5 of the Act gives the ―scope of total income‖. Sub-Section (1) thereof, with which we are concerned, reads as under: 1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a resident includes all income from whatever source derived which (a) Is received or is deeme…

ACIT Cir, 31 (1) Room No. 217, New Delhi vs. Rngs Consortium, New Delhi

In the result ITA No. 153/Del/2009 is dismissed

ITA 2238/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasst Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Rngs Consortium, Tax, 8, Aradhana Colony, Circle-31(1), Cr Building, Ip Sector-13, Rk Puram, New Estate, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Expotec International Circle-11(1), Ltd, 8, Aradhana Colony, Rk New Delhi Puram, Sector-13, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 44A

…levant assessment year. Only the amount of Rs.33,1 1.35,942 being the amount of claim accepted by GAIL can be said to be the income assessable to tax in the hands of the appellant. The case laws referred to by the appellant i.e. E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT Vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust. 161 ITR 524 (SC) and other case laws discussed above have been considered and it is seen that they support the appellant‟s contention. It is also seen that the case law- relied upon by the AO in the assessment order, as discussed above, does not support the action of the AO. Keeping in vie…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/1069/2017HC Delhi15 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260A

…ourse and accordingly accounted in the books of accounts and income tax returns. We would clarify that the assessee therein was following mercantile system of accounting. Reference was made to E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) to observe as under:- ―12. Section 5 of the Act gives the ―scope of total income‖. Sub-Section (1) thereof, with which we are concerned, reads as under: ―(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a resident includes all income from whatever source derived which (a) Is rece…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shyam Telelink Ltd

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/70/2013HC Delhi15 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260A

…ourse and accordingly accounted in the books of accounts and income tax returns. We would clarify that the assessee therein was following mercantile system of accounting. Reference was made to E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) to observe as under:- ―12. Section 5 of the Act gives the ―scope of total income‖. Sub-Section (1) thereof, with which we are concerned, reads as under: ―(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a resident includes all income from whatever source derived which (a) Is rece…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shyam Telelink Ltd

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/73/2013HC Delhi15 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260A

…ourse and accordingly accounted in the books of accounts and income tax returns. We would clarify that the assessee therein was following mercantile system of accounting. Reference was made to E.D. Sassoon and Co. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) to observe as under:- ―12. Section 5 of the Act gives the ―scope of total income‖. Sub-Section (1) thereof, with which we are concerned, reads as under: ―(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total income of any previous year of a person who is a resident includes all income from whatever source derived which (a) Is rece…

M/S Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1548/KOL/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Instrumentarium Corporation Limited………………..………………………………..……….……....Appellant P.O. Box 100, Fi-00031 Ge, Finland Cc: Pricewterhouse Coopers South City Pinnacle 7Th Floor Plot No.Xi-I Sector V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aadcg 1535 E] Ddit (I.T.)-1(1), Kolkata.….....................................................................................….......….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sachit Jolly, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 3Rd , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The ‘Act’), Dt. 09/06/2009. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Assessment Year Of This Common Order. 2. The Appeals Bearing No’S Ita No. 1548 & 1549/Kol/2009 , For The Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2004-05, Were Referred By The Hon’Ble, Itat To A Special Bench Vide Order Dt. 6Th April, 2010, To Answer The Following Re-Framed Question.

Section 250

…ocation of provisions contained in sub section (tl of section 92 of the Act. It is submitted that expression "arises" has been subject matter of consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon and Company limited & Ors. Vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 27 (Refer page 78-79 of the case law compendium) wherein, it was held as under: "Accrues', 'arises' and 'is received' are three distinct terms. So far as receiving of income is concerned there can be no difficulty ; it conveys a clear and definite meaning, and I can think of no expression which makes its meaning plainer than the word 'receiving' itsel…

Mahesh Gordhandas Garodia, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5098/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Shri Maheshkumar Gordhandas Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Garodia, Income Tax 22(1) 149/156, Garodia Shopping Centre, Mumbai Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No.Aacpg2906R Appellant) .. Respondent) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh S Garodia, Income Tax 27(2) 149/156, Garodia Shopping Mumbai Centre, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No.Aacpg2906R Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing 10/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 12/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

Section 143(3)Section 55A

…he amount which has accrued to the respondent-assessee. The test of accrual is whether there is a right to receive the amount though later and such right is legally enforceable. In fact as observed by the Supreme Court in E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 "It is clear therefore that income may accrue to an assesee without the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him though it may be received later on its being ascertained. The basic conception is that he must have acquired a right to receive the income. There mu…

Dy. Comm. of Income-Tax, Cirlce-1, Nashik vs. M/S. Sidhivinayak Associates, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1350/PUN/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1350/Pun/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)

…17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. P.G & W Sawoo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra.) after considering the judgment rendered in the case of E.D. Sesson & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported as 26 ITR 27 held that the income to be chargeable to tax must accrue or arise at any point of time during the previous year. Similar view has been taken in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hemal Raju Shete (supra.). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held: “9. The contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on…

DCIT Non Corporate Circle 9(1), Chennai vs. Anil Sheth, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for 8

ITA 1705/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1705/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. Anil Sheth, Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Prince Marbles, Non Corporate Circle 9(1) No.34, Langs Garden Road, Chennai. Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. [Pan Addpa 3880A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Petchi, C.A
Section 2(47)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ (SMC) "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1705/CHNY/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2009-2010. The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shri. Anil Sheth, Income Tax, Prop. M/s. Prince Marbles, Non Corporate Circle 9(1) No.34, Langs Garden Road, Chennai. Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. [PAN ADDPA 3880A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri.B. Sagadevan, IRS,…

Nokia Net Works Nokia Group Finland vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1964/DEL/2001[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 3

…s been created in favour of the assessee by somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai, (1965) 56 ITR 42, CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co, (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Godhara Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 746. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore, reported in (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has not…

Nokia Net Works Nokia Gruop Finland vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the issues which have been remanded back by the Hon'ble High Court to this Tribunal stands decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

ITA 1963/DEL/2001[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Amit SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 3

…s been created in favour of the assessee by somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E. D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai, (1965) 56 ITR 42, CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co, (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) and Godhara Electricity Company Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 746. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore, reported in (1986) 158 ITR 102 (SC) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has not…