What is Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income is not taxable until it actually accrues or is received; hypothetical income, based on a mere claim not yet settled, is not chargeable to tax.

How many judgments cite Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

514 judgments on BharatTax cite Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 746), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 14A, Section 40A(3), Section 37(1).

Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 746)

Jagdish Prasad Gupta

ITA/695/2010HC Delhi18 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 260A

…ple of accrual of income, Mr. Aggarwal relied on the decisions in CIT, Bombay City-I v. M/s. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC); Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (Central), Calcutta [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC); Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC); CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) and E.D. ITA 711/2011 & batch matters Page 25 of 39 Sassoon & Company Ltd. and Ors. v. CIT, Bombay City [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC). 36. In support of his plea that, w…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Vels Institute of Science & Advanced Studies, Chennai

In the result, ITA No.2858/Mds

ITA 2858/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(3)

…- 2,07,55,200” ------------------- 17 - - ITA 2857 & 2858/16 4.9 According to the CIT(Appeals), now, it is well settled including in the land mark case of CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (46 ITR 146 [SC]) and Godhra Electricity Company Limited v. CIT (225 ITR 746 [SC]) that income tax is a levy on income and that no doubt income tax takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted i.e. the accrual of income or its receipts but the substance of the matter is the income and if income does not result at all there cannot be a tax even though in book keeping an entry is made a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Vels Institute of Science & Advanced Studies, Chennai

In the result, ITA No.2858/Mds

ITA 2857/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(3)

…- 2,07,55,200” ------------------- 17 - - ITA 2857 & 2858/16 4.9 According to the CIT(Appeals), now, it is well settled including in the land mark case of CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (46 ITR 146 [SC]) and Godhra Electricity Company Limited v. CIT (225 ITR 746 [SC]) that income tax is a levy on income and that no doubt income tax takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted i.e. the accrual of income or its receipts but the substance of the matter is the income and if income does not result at all there cannot be a tax even though in book keeping an entry is made a…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2200/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद!य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2161, 2162 & 2163/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s.Neyveli Lignite – Tax, Corporation Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit-II, Block 1 – Corporate Office, Chennai. Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. [PAN: AAACN 1121 C ] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Res…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2199/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद!य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2161, 2162 & 2163/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s.Neyveli Lignite – Tax, Corporation Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit-II, Block 1 – Corporate Office, Chennai. Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. [PAN: AAACN 1121 C ] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Res…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2163/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद!य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2161, 2162 & 2163/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s.Neyveli Lignite – Tax, Corporation Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit-II, Block 1 – Corporate Office, Chennai. Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. [PAN: AAACN 1121 C ] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Res…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2162/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद!य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2161, 2162 & 2163/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s.Neyveli Lignite – Tax, Corporation Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit-II, Block 1 – Corporate Office, Chennai. Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. [PAN: AAACN 1121 C ] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Res…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2161/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद!य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2161, 2162 & 2163/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s.Neyveli Lignite – Tax, Corporation Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit-II, Block 1 – Corporate Office, Chennai. Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. [PAN: AAACN 1121 C ] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Res…

Sh. Manish Thakur, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4668/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. D. R

Section 68

…all, there cannot be levy of tax. Even if an entry of hypothetical income is made in the books of account, where the income does not result at all as there is neither accrual nor receipt of income, no tax can be levied. GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746 (S.C.) Income Tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income Tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there can not be a tax, even though in book-keeping, an entry is made ab…

Rallison Electricals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2405/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Satish Aggarwal, C. AFor Respondent: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr. D. R

Section 80Section 80I

…ng year though the actual deduction took place after the end of the year. The Supreme Court held that the larger income neither accrued nor was received by the assessee firm. Similar view has been taken in the case of Godhra Electricity Co.Ltd.Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC) and State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT(Kerala) 158 ITR 103 3. Further, the appellant company’s Baddi unit had made sales of Rs. 32,29,40,504.89/- on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has already apportioned expenditure while drafting the assessment order, in view of which, going by even the own reasoning of the Assessing Officer, no no…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3867/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…eel Ltd. vs. CIT (1988) 67 CTR (Pat) 281 : (1988) 170 ITR 545 (Pat) : TC 38R.1012 and CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1988) 67 CTR (Pat) 138 : (1988) 170 ITR 522 (Pat) : TC 38R.1011 affirmed; Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (sq 564 : (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC) applied." The Income Tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, the accrual of income or its receipt, but the substance of the matter is the income. If the income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in accounts, an entry is made about the "hypothetical income" which does…

M/S Canara Housing Development Company, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

…basis of book entries has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following decisions: i) CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) ii) CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) iii) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1998) 225 ITR 746 (SC) The Hon’ble Supreme Court again in case of Sutlej Cotton Mills v. CIT 116 ITR 1 held that the entries in the books of accounts are not conclusive of matter if the same are not in conformity with the accounting principles. What is required is the true nature of the transaction and whether it has resulted in profit or loss to the assessee.…