(i) (1978) 114 ITR 253 (Mad.), S. A. Ramakrishnan v. CIT, (ii)

171 ITR 447High Court1988#16968 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing (i) (1978) 114 ITR 253 (Mad.), S. A. Ramakrishnan v. CIT, (ii)

Chandrakant Gulabrao Borde, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 13(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare & Shri D.Y. PanditFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 10Section 147Section 17Section 28Section 56

…111) 79 CCH 0204 (Guj. High Court) 5. CIT Vs. Batra (2008) 76 CCH 0918 (Delhi High Court) 6. DIT Vs. M/s. S.R.M.B. Diary Farming (P) Ltd. (Supreme Court) 7. ACIT Vs. Sameer Sudhakar Dighe – ITA No.1327/Mum/2016, dated 13-04-2018 8. CIT Vs. M.Balamuralikrishna 171 ITR 447 (Mad.) 9. G.R. Vishwanath Vs. ITO 29 ITD 142 (Bangalore) 10. Kapil Dev Vs. ACIT – ITA No.4788/Del./2003 and connected appeals dated 28-06-2013 11. CIT Vs. M/s. Gemini Distilliers 398 ITR 343 (SC) 12. UTI and Another Vs. P.K. Unny and others 249 ITR 612 (Bom.) 10. Referring to the additional ground raised by the assessee which is legal in nature…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sameer Sudhakar Dighe, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Sameer Sudhakar Income Tax, Circle 19(3) Dighe, 8Th Floor, Shreepati Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Annexe, Gowalia Tank Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 036 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Abwpd5514H

For Appellant: Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: M.V. Rajguru, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…t a professional will not be liable to tax. As we have pointed out, cricket was not the profession of the assessee, but only a vocation. 9. It may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. Balamuralikrishna [1988] 171 ITR 447 wherein it is held that amounts received from admirers and fans of a musician in appreciation of his services rendered as a musician are not his taxable income. It has been held that the payment has no nexus to the profession. Here, the assessee was a professional musician. 10 10. The case of the assessee before us is on a better footing. He is…

Aroon Purie vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…f eminence of a person in the field of Journalism. The assessee relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: (i) (1978) 114 ITR 253 (Mad.), S. A. Ramakrishnan vs. CIT, (ii) (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.), C.P. Chitrarasu vs. CIT (iii) (1988) 171 ITR 447 (Mad.), CIT vs. M. Balamuralikrishna (iv) (1984) 148 ITR 333 (Mad.), CIT vs. Dr.B.M. Sundaravadanan 4. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the award given to the assessee was not covered by the exemption provisions of Section 10(17A) of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the case…

Aroon Purie vs. Commr.of Income Tax

ITA - 232 / 2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…f eminence of a person in the field of Journalism. The assessee relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: (i) (1978) 114 ITR 253 (Mad.), S. A. Ramakrishnan vs. CIT, (ii) (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.), C.P. Chitrarasu vs. CIT (iii) (1988) 171 ITR 447 (Mad.), CIT vs. M. Balamuralikrishna (iv) (1984) 148 ITR 333 (Mad.), CIT vs. Dr.B.M. Sundaravadanan 4. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the award given to the assessee was not covered by the exemption provisions of Section 10(17A) of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the case…

Aroon Purie vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…f eminence of a person in the field of Journalism. The assessee relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: (i) (1978) 114 ITR 253 (Mad.), S. A. Ramakrishnan vs. CIT, (ii) (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.), C.P. Chitrarasu vs. CIT (iii) (1988) 171 ITR 447 (Mad.), CIT vs. M. Balamuralikrishna (iv) (1984) 148 ITR 333 (Mad.), CIT vs. Dr.B.M. Sundaravadanan 4. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the award given to the assessee was not covered by the exemption provisions of Section 10(17A) of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the case…