What is ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah authority for?

Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer must tax any taxable income in the hands of the correct assessee to whom it truly belongs, having no option to assess it in any other person's hands.

How many judgments cite ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah?

149 judgments on BharatTax cite ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69A, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 132, Section 132(4).

ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239)

Abdul Nayab Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(1), Maturmandir, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4012/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 4012/Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2011-12) Abdul Nayab Shaikh vs ITO 23(1)(1), Mumbai (Deceased) L/H-Mr. Abdul Samad Shaikh Comrade Watch House C-6A, Sona Shopping, 31, Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai- 400 050 PAN: AANPS9431J APPELLANT Assessee by Respondent by Date of hearing Date of pronouncement Room No.106, Matru Mandir Mumbai RESPONDENT Shri Ajay Singh & Akshay Pawar Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR) 02/05/2024 07/05/2024 PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: ORDER The Insta…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 685/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.682 to 685/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2013-14 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/s. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. PAN : AALCS3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee by : None Date of hearing : 12.10.2023 Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 684/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.682 to 685/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2013-14 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/s. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. PAN : AALCS3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee by : None Date of hearing : 12.10.2023 Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multritrade India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 683/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.682 to 685/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2013-14 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/s. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. PAN : AALCS3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee by : None Date of hearing : 12.10.2023 Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 682/PUN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.682 To 685/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. Pan : Aalcs3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.06.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Revenue, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Revenue In Ita No.685/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.682 to 685/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2011-12 & 2013-14 DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vs. M/s. Partha Multitrade Aurangabad. India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Flat No.1/5, A. S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Nr. Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai-400068. PAN : AALCS3668L Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Assessee by : None Date of hearing : 12.10.2023 Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastruture (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1367/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

….com 389 (Guj.) v) Urmilaben Anirushasinhji Jadeja v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 226 (Guj.) vi) Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 292 (Bom.) m) He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) wherein it has been held that income has to be assessed in the hands of the right person and assessing the same in the hands of the wrong person does not exonerate assessing the same income in the hands of the right person. Therefore, it is essential that income has to be assessed and taxed in the hands of the right person which in the insta…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1363/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

….com 389 (Guj.) v) Urmilaben Anirushasinhji Jadeja v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 226 (Guj.) vi) Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 292 (Bom.) m) He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) wherein it has been held that income has to be assessed in the hands of the right person and assessing the same in the hands of the wrong person does not exonerate assessing the same income in the hands of the right person. Therefore, it is essential that income has to be assessed and taxed in the hands of the right person which in the insta…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1362/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

….com 389 (Guj.) v) Urmilaben Anirushasinhji Jadeja v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 226 (Guj.) vi) Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 292 (Bom.) m) He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) wherein it has been held that income has to be assessed in the hands of the right person and assessing the same in the hands of the wrong person does not exonerate assessing the same income in the hands of the right person. Therefore, it is essential that income has to be assessed and taxed in the hands of the right person which in the insta…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.297/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Income-Tax, Circle-2, Surat, Vs. K-801, River View Heights, Room No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pedar Road, Mota Varachha, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394101 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb 0820 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

…1 SCC 540 15). If a tax has been paid in excess of the tax specified, save and except the cases involving the principle of ‘unjust enrichment’, the excess tax realized must be refunded to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. CH. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) has held that the income should be assessed on the right person, right year and it should be on the right income. From the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court only the right person and the right person alone is liable to be taxed and not the wrong person. We note that ‘sauda chithi’ does not pertain to the assesseee. The assessin…

Manju Singh, Fatehpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2 (4), Fatehpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad08 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.27/Alld/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनधम/ Manju Singh Ito-2(4) Chandelan Ka Purwa Income Tax Office, Vs. Jamrawa, Fatehpur-212654. Fatehpur-212601. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Diwps4493G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Arora Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 27.01.2023 For Ay. 2017-18. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee An Individual (Partner Of A Firm) Is That The Ao Misdirected Himself While Passing The Assessment Order By Mistakenly Taking Note Of The Bank Accounts Of The Firm (M/S. Samar Brick Field) As That Of Assessee & Thereby Erroneously Made Addition Of Rs.4,04,374/-. 3. Brief Facts Is That Assessee Is An Individual & A Partner In A Partnership Firm M/S. Samar Brick Field (Pan: Acbfs1057I) & Her Source Of Income Is From The Firm I.E. Interest On Capital Remuneration & Share Of Profit From The Firm (M/S. Samar Brick Field) & Since Her Income In This Relevant Year Was Less Than The Threshold Limit Prescribed By The Finance Act, She Did Not File Her Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Mayank AroraFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

…e taxation u/s 44AD in the hands of the assessee and frame assessment accordingly. It is trite law that the AO should only tax the income of the right person, in the right year, on the right income [Refer Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in ITO Vs. Ch. Atchaiah 218 ITR 239 (SC)]. On the aforesaid discussion (supra), the AO is directed to frame assessment after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 08/09/2023. (ABY T. VARKEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Allahabad ददनांक Dated : 08/09/2023. Vijay Pal…

Bhagyaarma Gem & Jewellery Private Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 250/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 250/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bhagyaarna Gems & Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. G.B Plaza, Sadar Bazar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaect0981A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 124(1)Section 127Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…find no justification for the A.O. to have held the investments mentioned above as having been sourced out of an unexplained source in the hands of the assessee company. 20. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Ch. Atchaiah (1966) 218 ITR 239 (SC), the Income Tax Officer can and must tax the right person and the right person alone. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the “right person” means the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, concerning a particular income. It was further observed that the expression “wrong person” is used as the opposite of the expression “right…

Late Shri Jitendra Kumar Bhasne Through Legal Heir Smt. Bharti Bhasne, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 406/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…estment by the appellant in the purchase of ICICI Prudential Insurance in the name of his wife, Smt. Bharti Bhasne. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Atchaiach (Ch) (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- "Under the present Act, the Income-tax Officer has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By "right person" is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular inco…

Smt. Bharti Bhasne, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 404/IND/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…estment by the appellant in the purchase of ICICI Prudential Insurance in the name of his wife, Smt. Bharti Bhasne. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Atchaiach (Ch) (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- "Under the present Act, the Income-tax Officer has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By "right person" is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular inco…

Shrikrishna D. Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh AhirFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 120(5)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 151/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Krishna D. Pawar बिधम/ ITO-16(3)(4) 602, Suraj Apts, H. F. Sty Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Jogeshwari East, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400060. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAFPP3851P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Dinesh Ahir Revenue by: Shri Krishna Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 10/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/04/202…

Darshana Ashokkumar Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 261/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 148

…as a joint holder. It is well settled proposition of law that the income has to be assessed in right hands in right assessment year. In this regard, we may take support of following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ch Atchiah (218 ITR 239)(SC):- “In our opinion, the contention urged by Dr. Gauri Shanker merits acceptance. We are of the opinion that under the present Act, the Income Tax Officer has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, 5 Darshana Ashokkumar Sheth and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By "right person", we mean the perso…

Darshana Ashokkumar Sheth Individual, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 259/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 148

…as a joint holder. It is well settled proposition of law that the income has to be assessed in right hands in right assessment year. In this regard, we may take support of following observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ch Atchiah (218 ITR 239)(SC):- “In our opinion, the contention urged by Dr. Gauri Shanker merits acceptance. We are of the opinion that under the present Act, the Income Tax Officer has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, 5 Darshana Ashokkumar Sheth and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By "right person", we mean the perso…

Income Tax Officer 21(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Gammon Ojsc Mosmetrostroy Joint Venture, Mumbai

ITA 5524/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 2(31)

…Rail Ltd. which in turn was passed on by the assessee to co- ventures. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the Landmark Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 wherein it was held that if the share of the profit is determined but AOP, the joint venture agreement, it cannot be anything but AOP, and where the charge is on the income of the AOP, in such status, the AO has no choice but to tax it, irrespective of the fact as to whether such share of profit has been offered to tax or taxed in the hands of me…

ITO Ncw10(3), Chennai vs. M/S Lakshmi Brick Industries, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 945/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 945/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sri Lakshmi Brick Non Corporate Ward 10(3), V. Industries, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, No. 2/34, M.H. Road, Chennai- 600 034. Red Hills, Chennai – 600 052. [Pan: Abjfs-6851-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023

For Respondent: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 80I

…le proceeds of these flats in their individual hands, addition in the hands of the firm is not warranted. However, fact remains that right income should be assessed in the hands of right person is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) and S.P Jaiswal vs CIT (224 ITR 619). The ld. DR, further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bankipur Club Ltd (supra), without appreciating fact that said case was that of principle of mutuality applicable to members of the club, whereas, the facts in this case is transfer of asset by…

Mohammed Yusuf, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms our aforesaid observations

ITA 147/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Mohd. Yusuf Ward No.27, Dabari Para, Mova, Raipur-492 009 (C.G.) Pan : Acfpy4817N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ns, viz. S/sh. Tafazzul Hussain and Abbas Hussain, therefore, the income/gain arising on the transfer of the said property could have only been brought to tax in their hands. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Ch. Attchaiah (1998) 218 ITR 239 (SC), the income has to be assessed in the hands of the right person and the right person alone, and while giving effect to the said scheme of taxation the interest of the revenue cannot be allowed to come in the way. Thus, in the case before us, merely for the reason that the whereabouts of the real owners were either not to the knowledge of the…

Suresh Goyal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 9(3), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 26/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2011-12 Suresh Goyal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gat No.255, Ward-9(3), Pune Chikhali M. Moshi Road, Boradewadi, Pune – 412 105 Pan : Acupa6602L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh MachileFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Suresh Goyal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Gat No.255, Ward-9(3), Pune Chikhali M. Moshi Road, Boradewadi, Pune – 412 105 PAN : ACUPA6602L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dinesh Machile Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 14-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 23-11-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A), Pune-13’s order dated 31.10.2019, passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-1…

ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah

What is ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah

Abdul Nayab Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(1)(1), Maturmandir, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multritrade India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Known As Swift Ventures Pvt Ltd), Mumbai

Trishul Buildtech Infrastruture (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Surat

Manju Singh, Fatehpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2 (4), Fatehpur

Bhagyaarma Gem & Jewellery Private Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur

Late Shri Jitendra Kumar Bhasne Through Legal Heir Smt. Bharti Bhasne, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

Smt. Bharti Bhasne, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

Shrikrishna D. Pawar, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(3)(4), Mumbai

Darshana Ashokkumar Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(1)(1), Mumbai

Darshana Ashokkumar Sheth Individual, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(1)(1), Mumbai

Income Tax Officer 21(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Gammon Ojsc Mosmetrostroy Joint Venture, Mumbai

ITO Ncw10(3), Chennai vs. M/S Lakshmi Brick Industries, Chennai

Mohammed Yusuf, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Raipur

Suresh Goyal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 9(3), Pune