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)

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…al interest or income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has long back propounded this principle in the case of CIT v. ShoorjiVallabhdas& Co.46 ITR 144 (SC), which has been repeated time and again and has been followed by Apex Court in the case of Godhara Electric Co.225 ITR 746 (SC). It has also been held that making or non making entries does not make any sense and what is to be seen is that in substance some income has resulted or not. The income under the IT Act can be taxed only on two occasion’s i.e. either on receipt or on its accrual. In the present case, however, there was admittedly no receipt of income. Also t…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…al interest or income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has long back propounded this principle in the case of CIT v. ShoorjiVallabhdas& Co.46 ITR 144 (SC), which has been repeated time and again and has been followed by Apex Court in the case of Godhara Electric Co.225 ITR 746 (SC). It has also been held that making or non making entries does not make any sense and what is to be seen is that in substance some income has resulted or not. The income under the IT Act can be taxed only on two occasion’s i.e. either on receipt or on its accrual. In the present case, however, there was admittedly no receipt of income. Also t…

Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

…d State Government has full power to levy such regulatory fees. Copy of this letter is enclosed herewith 4.7 In any case the levy of export pass fee is a disputed matter and therefore disputed claims are not liable to tax (a) Godhra Electricity Co Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) (b) CIT vs Smt. Vinita D. Sonwane&Ors. 212 ITR 489 (Bom) (c) In a case reported in 170 Tax World 148 (All)-CIT vs. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd It has been held that where right to receive payment had been in dispute, it could not from part of trading receipt, excess price realized by assessee on levy sugar did not become part of trading re…

DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, Nehru Sehkar Bhawan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

…d State Government has full power to levy such regulatory fees. Copy of this letter is enclosed herewith 4.7 In any case the levy of export pass fee is a disputed matter and therefore disputed claims are not liable to tax (a) Godhra Electricity Co Ltd vs CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) (b) CIT vs Smt. Vinita D. Sonwane&Ors. 212 ITR 489 (Bom) (c) In a case reported in 170 Tax World 148 (All)-CIT vs. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd It has been held that where right to receive payment had been in dispute, it could not from part of trading receipt, excess price realized by assessee on levy sugar did not become part of trading re…

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…ition on account of notional interest of Rs. 1,39,366/-. There cannot be any addition on account of notional income as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. & Ors. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27 and Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 where it was held that only real income can be taxed, hypothetical income cannot be taxed nor income can be taxed in vacuum. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is not as per law and the same be deleted. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by stating that it is the disallowance of interest. It is submitted that the lower authorities have…

The Good Shepherd Education Society, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 128/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 249

…has not considered the real income. It is in contravention to the scheme of Income Tax Act. In support of his arguments, he relied on the following judgments: a. CIT v. ShoorjiVallabhdas& Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) b. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) c. Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) d. CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas& Co. [1960] 39 ITR 8 (SC) e. CIT v Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. [1960] 39 ITR 1 (SC) f. CIT v Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 409 (SC) Page 3 of 4 g. Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) h. CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999]…

Cobol Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 5505/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

…aken place in the hands of the assessee. Further, to buttress the submissions that only real income and not hypothetical income can be taxed in the hands of the assessee reliance was placed on following decisions: (i) Godhra Electricity Company Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 746 (SC); & (ii) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd., 385 ITR 295 (SC). 70.1. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the AO and the CIT(A) have made addition of Rs.94,83,439/- by imputing interest @12% per annum in respect of outstanding loans from Neha International Ltd. and M/s. Royal Refinery. The CIT(A) in para 8.10 of the impugned order has record…

Shri Veershaiv Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 175/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni

Section 143(3)Section 250

…t is well settled in income-tax law that book keeping entries are not decisive or determinative of the true nature of the entries as held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. India Discount Co. Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 191 and in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC). It has been held in those decisions that the court has to see the true nature of the receipts and not go only by the entry in the books of account. We agree with the Tribunal that these deposits are really capital receipts and not revenue receipts. In Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. V. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 542 (SC) which was followed in Sinc…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 704/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

…received by the assessee an income tax is levied on income. For this purpose we may refer judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. M/s. 144 Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. reported in 46 ITR which was reiterated in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., V/s. CIT reported in 225 ITR 746. Supreme Court summed up the law as under: “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 the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even thoug…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. Smt Reena Sudhir Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel (Spl. Counsel for the department), Sr. DR

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(4)Section 250

…received by the assessee an income tax is levied on income. For this purpose we may refer judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. M/s. 144 Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. reported in 46 ITR which was reiterated in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., V/s. CIT reported in 225 ITR 746. Supreme Court summed up the law as under: “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 the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even thoug…

M/S.Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd, Thrissur vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 363/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. .......... Appellant Tc/32/204/1, Sitaram Mill Road Punkunnam, Thrissur 680002 [Pan: Aadck6079K] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle -1(1), Thrissur Appellant By: Ms. Krishna K., Advocate Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Krishna K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…d, 5 Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. therefore, not liable to tax. It is further submits that the gain from unexpired forward contract is notional income placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 and also placing reliance on ICDS that such income is not taxable. He also placed reliance on several decisions. 10. On the other hand, the CIT-DR vehemently opposed the above submissions and submits that no interference in the orders of the lower authorities is called for. 11. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused…

Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT-31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 660/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel

Section 144

…y the assessee as income-tax is levied on income. For this purpose, we may refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. reported in [1962] 46 ITR 144 which was reiterated in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC). The Supreme Court summed up the law as under (headnote) : "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 the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cann…

Growmore Leasing and Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT-31, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 452/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, Spl. Counsel

Section 144

…y the assessee as income-tax is levied on income. For this purpose, we may refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. reported in [1962] 46 ITR 144 which was reiterated in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC). The Supreme Court summed up the law as under (headnote) : "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 the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cann…

M/S Funidea Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2583/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2583/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Funidea Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.…………………………………..….……….Appellant 2, Lal Bazar Street, 1St Floor, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aabcf9340C] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 11.12.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.33,511/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Limited Scrutiny Criteria For The Reason Of Selection Of Low Income Compared To High Loans/Advances/Investment In Shares Appearing In Balance Sheet & Expenses Debited To P&L A/C For Earning Exempt Income As Per Schedule Bp Of Itr Is Significantly Lower As Compared To Investments Made To Earn Exempt Income. Subsequently, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee & Also Notice

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.2583/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Funidea Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.…………………………………..….……….Appellant 2, Lal Bazar Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata -1. [PAN: AABCF9340C] vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of conclu…