ITO v. Arunagiri Chettiar

220 ITR 232Reported decision1996#8304 most cited

What is ITO v. Arunagiri Chettiar authority for?

A retired partner remains liable for the tax demands of the firm for the period they were a partner, even before statutory amendments explicitly stating this.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Arunagiri Chettiar · retired partner liability · firm tax demand · assessment year · section 188A · partner liability

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

construction pepenalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 269sdomestic companysection 273section 269sssection 273bsection 271dsection 48section 269child

Judgments citing ITO v. Arunagiri Chettiar

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…(SC), Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172 : (1985) 156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W (SC), Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 415 : (1979) 120 ITR 49 : (1979) 2 Taxman 409 (SC), ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar (1996) 134 CTR (SC) 167 : (1996) 220 ITR 232 : (1996) 86 Taxman 330 (SC), 74 ITR 526JGuj (sic), CIT vs. Madhukant M. Mehta (1980) 19 CTR (Guj) 130 : (1981) 132 ITR 159 : (1981) 5 Taxman 11 (Guj), Vir Sales Corpn. vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Trib)(Ahd) 46 : (1994) 50 TTJ (Ahd) 130 and Mohamad Ali vs. Karji Koudho Rayaguru AIR 1945 Pat 286. The Departmental Representative invited our atten…

Karnataka Agrochemical Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-4(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…(SC), Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172 : (1985) 156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W (SC), Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 415 : (1979) 120 ITR 49 : (1979) 2 Taxman 409 (SC), ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar (1996) 134 CTR (SC) 167 : (1996) 220 ITR 232 : (1996) 86 330 (SC), 74 ITR 526 (Guj) Taxman (sic), CIT vs. Madhukant M. Mehta (1980) 19 CTR (Guj) 130 : (1981) 132 ITR 159 : (1981) 5 Taxman 11 (Guj), Vir Sales Corpn. vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Trib)(Ahd) 46 : (1994) 50 TTJ (Ahd) 130 and Mohamad Ali vs. Karji Koudho Rayaguru AIR 1945 Pat 286. The Departmental Representative invited our att…

Akash Education & Development Trust, Bengaluru vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…ddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172 : (1985) 156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W (SC), Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 415 : Page 18 of 37 (1979) 120 ITR 49 : (1979) 2 Taxman 409 (SC), ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar (1996) 134 CTR (SC) 167 : (1996) 220 ITR 232 : (1996) 86 330 (SC), 74 ITR 526JGuj) Taxman (sic), CIT vs. Madhukant M. Mehta (1980) 19 CTR (Guj) 130 : (1981) 132 ITR 159 : (1981) 5 Taxman 11 (Guj), Vir Sales Corpn. vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) 121 CTR (Trib)(Ahd) 46 : (1994) 50 TTJ (Ahd) 130 and Mohamad Ali vs. Karji Koudho Rayaguru AIR 1945 Pat 286. The Departmental Representative invited our atte…

Jt. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3764/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

DCIT- CC- 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2873/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

DCIT -CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2872/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

DCIT - CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2871/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2462/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2461/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 1413/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1412/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…he tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question was whether a partner is liable to pay a demand raised on a firm, pursuant to his retirement but, in respect of an assessment year during which he was acting as a partner. The Kerala High Court decided the question in favour of the assessee holding that nothing in the Act provide that the retired partner would be liable to pa…

ITO v. Arunagiri Chettiar (220 ITR 232) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax