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 239Supreme Court of India1996#669 most cited

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.

149

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah · 218 ITR 239 · 84 Taxmann 630 · correct assessee · right person taxation · Assessing Officer's duty · unexplained money · unexplained investment · section 69A · section 132(4) · assessment of income · identification of real owner

Also reported as

84 Taxmann 630

Sections most often in play

Section 69A Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 144B Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271f section 139(4)section 292c section 292 section 271a section 29 loose papers unexplained investment unexplained money section 132(4)double taxation section 23

Judgments citing ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah

M/S Subhash Chander & Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 2158/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R

…of person liable for taxation. Income is to 5 ITA.No.2158/Del./2016 M/s.Subhash Chander & Co., New Delhi. be assessed in the hands of right person, even if wrong person paid tax. We rely on Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Atchaiah’s case 218 ITR 239 (SC). In this view of the mater, we do not find any justification to interfere with the Orders of the authorities below. This ground of appeal of assessee is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court. (B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dated 14th August, 2019 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant…

Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur vs. M/S. Rds Construction (Jv), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.623/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward- 2(2), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction (Jv), 363/11, Balaji Niwas, Deep Bunglow Chowk, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaaar8625B Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 2, Pune Dated 09.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Holding That No Income Attributable On Contract Receipts Could Be Taxed In The Status Of The Aop. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Justified In Ignoring That The Assessee, Being A Separate Entity U/S 2(31) Of The It Act, 1961 & Having A Pan Should Have Prepared Its Own Profit & Loss Account As Well As The Balance Sheet Reflecting The Full Transactions Undertaken By It & Not Just Showing Apportionment Of Receipts/ Payments & Assets/Liabilities Between Its Members.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

Section 194CSection 2(31)Section 40

…rovisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) justified in not considering the landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Achaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 wherein it was held that if the share of profit is determined in 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 Assessing Officer 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…

Mdlr Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…a determinative and nor a conclusive consideration to determine the taxability of the sum received by partner from firm :- 1) Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) 2) State bank of Travancore Vs. CIT 158 ITR 102 (SC) 3) Income Tax Officer Vs. Ch. Atchaiah 218 ITR 239 (SC) 4) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 19. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dynamic Enterprises he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where retiring partner took cash towards value of his share in partnership firm and there was no distribut…

Mdlr Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Usha J Dutta, Mumbai

ITA 7663/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7663/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Usha J. Dutia Acit 27(2) R. No. 420, 4Th Floor, 7 Arut Dhara, Joshi Lane बिधम/ Ghatkopar East, Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Abqpd9420J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Pankaj R. Toprani & Ms. Krupa P. Toprani, Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.01.2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 24.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv GubgotraFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj r. Toprani

Section 148Section 5Section 69A

…35), wherein as per the judgement, the income is taxable immediately, the year it accrues. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Atchaiah (CH) (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC), wherein it is held that the income is required to be assessed correctly even 3 I.T.A. No. 7663/Mum/2016 Usha J. Dutia though assessee may have paid tax incorrectly or a wrong person may have been assessed. 5. On facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the decision in the case of New Jahangir Vahil Mill…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shree Harivansh Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed and assessee’s Rule 27 application is allowed as discussed above

ITA 2122/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)

…(A) allowed the claim of the assessee to set off of the loss of Rs.91,36,345/- from the unaccounted profit of Rs.92,11,870/- and accordingly, the undisclosed income was restricted to Rs.1,76,525/-. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Ch. Atchaiah 218 ITR 239 (SC) has laid the ratio/principle that “under the present Act, the ITO has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. The ITO can and the ITO must tax the right person and the right person alone on the right income in the right year.” In this case, we note that the AO based on the CIB information and ITS details and finding 4 Shree Hariva…

Purnendu Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.2(1), International Taxation, Kolkata

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

ITA 2241/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 139(5)Section 192Section 194JSection 24Section 80C

…/additions were made against the assessee. In the appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) also has not considered the grounds raised specifically by the assessee on this issue. It is trite law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ITO Vs. Ch. Atchaiah 218 ITR 239 (SC) that under the present Act (Income Tax Act, 1961), the ITO has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can and he must tax the right person alone. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given the proposition of law that income tax has to be levied from the right person, for the right year and the right income. In case, as i…

Jaikumar Babulal Bhandari, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1029/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…partnership firm, then in no possible manner, the amount could be made taxable in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITO Vs. Ch. Atchaiah reported at 218 ITR 239 (SC) and decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Prabhakar Kamath and 3 others reported as 68 taxmann.com 359 (Kar.) wherein the proposition of law laid down by these judgments is that assessment has to be done in the right hands. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the orders of the Sub-ordina…

Chandravadan V Bhandari (HUF), Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1028/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 68

Shyama Prasad Murarka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. -3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.533 & 534/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri D.S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT DR

Section 153A

…Officer from the correct source and ascertain the true and correct facts keeping in mind that only in the right year the right income in the right hands only should be taxed. we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. CH. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC). In these circumstances, we are of the view that right person has not been identified by the assessing officer. 8. Based on the above discussion, we are constrained to observe that the AO has failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry to ascertain the income of the assessee and the tax payable by him to the UOI. Therefo…

Shyama Prasad Murarka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. -3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the both appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 533/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2019AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.533 & 534/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri D.S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT DR

Section 153A

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

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

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…violation of section 40A(3) and, thus, disallowance there-under, could only be effected in the hands of the Association of Persons (AOP) consisting of the assessee and the other purchasers (owners) of the subject land. Relying upon ITO v. Ch. Attchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC), it was stated that the law does not give the assessing authority the option to tax either the members of an AOP individually or as an AOP. If, in law, it is the AOP which is to be taxed, its’ members cannot be taxed on the income of the AOP. As such, he opined that assuming, though not admitting, it was a joint venture, it could be disallow…

ITO, Ward - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Carelink Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1752/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1752/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rabin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate

Section 131oSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…5,00,000) received in the A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act in the Assessment Year under consideration, that is, A.Y. 2012-13. For that, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. CH. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) wherein it was 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 alone is liable to be taxed in the right assessment year. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 8,70,000/- needs to be deleted. 9. We note that t…

M/S Gda Cement Industry Pvt. Ltd., Purulia vs. ACIT, Cir-3, Asansol

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in Ground No

ITA 1465/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1465/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Gda Cement Industry Vs. Acit, Cir-3, Asansol Pvt. Ltd. Chowdhury Market, S.N. Sarkar Road, Munsiffdanga, Purulia – 723101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aadcg 4934 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri U. Dasgupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriAjay Singh CIT(DR)&R.Choudhary, Addl-CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…essed in the assessee`s case under consideration is whether the cash credit under section 68 of the Act can be added and assessed in the hands of the assessee for the A.Y.2010-11? We note thatthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofITO 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. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtare given below: “4. In our opinion, the contention urged by Dr. Gauri shanker merits acceptance. We are of the opinion that under the present Act, the ITO has no option like…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4326/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4326/Mum/2017, 4327/Mum/2017, 4329/Mum/2017, 4331/Mum/2017, 4332/Mum/2017, 4475/Mum/2017 & 4476/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11,2012–13,2013–14 &, 2014–15) Maharashtra Industrial Development Assistant Commissioner Of Income Corporation Tax (Exemptions) 2(1) Udyog Sarathi, Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Mahakali Caves Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri V. Sridharan & S. Sriram प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit–Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (CIT–DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…nterest income earned on the funds parked as deposits with the banks etc. were liable to be assessed as the income of the assessee corporation. We are of the considered view that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Ch. Attchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC), it is obligatory on the part of the revenue authorities to assess the income in the hands of the right person and the right person alone. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the representatives for both the parties and perused the exhaustive material placed on record…

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4474/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Maharashtra Industrial Deputy Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Tax (Exemption)-2(1), बिधम/ Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 60Section 61Section 62

…nterest income earned on the funds parked as deposits with the banks etc. were liable to be assessed as the income of the assessee corporation. We are of the considered view that as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Ch. Attchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC), it is obligatory on the part of the revenue authorities to assess the income in the hands of the right person and the right person alone. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the representatives for both the parties and perused the exhaustive material placed on record…

Subrata Daw, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(2), Kolkata

ITA 2157/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 48Section 50Section 54Section 55A

…o any provision of the Act, but inheres in every quasi judicial authority. This has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal 1980(Supp) SCC 420. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. CH. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) has held ) has held that the income should be assessed on the right person, right year and it should be on the right income. 10. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in S. R. Costhi Vs. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165 (SC) held, inter alia, “the authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961 are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be co…

ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. L & T Hcc Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 8451/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.8451/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito 12(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. L&T Hcc Joint R.No. 116, 1St Floor, Venture L&T House, N.M. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaal0661M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. P. Meena (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.09.2011 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -23, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Of The Assessee Is Liable To Be Assessed As A Separate Independent Entity & Can Not Be Assessed As An Aop. 1A While Doing So The Id Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Being The Joint Venture It Can Be Treated As An Aop In A.Y.2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 2Section 2(31)Section 2(31)(v)Section 40

…is required is common business purpose and common management. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the assessee, ignored the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITO vs. Atchaih. 218 ITR 239 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no option either for the revenue or the assessee for assessing the members directly as was possible under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and also the decision in the case of CIT vs. Indira Balakrishna (1960) 39 ITR 546 (SC) which clearly defined the taxability of income in the status of AOP.…

ITO, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Tilotama Mishra, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 480/CTK/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2015-2016

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…- 201 6 she is liable for taxation of income, in respect of her share from the sale consideration received from that property. 2.2 The Ld.ClT(A) ought to have appreciated that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of ITO V.Ch.Atchaiah: 218 ITR 239(SC), it was held that "merely because a wrong person is taxed with respect to a particular income, the AO is not precluded from taxing the right person with respect to that income", and thus he ought to have upheld the addition made by the AO towards income from Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee.” 3. When the appeal was called…

DCIT Cir. 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nina Bhadrashyam Kothari, Mumbai

ITA 2343/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2343/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2344/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-Circle-3(3)(1) Smt. Nina Bhadrashyam Kothari Room No.609, 6Th Floor 39, Seawind, Cuffe Parade, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Aahpk 5415 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: S/Shri Abhijit Patankar & V. Vidhyadhar-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/01/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28/03/2018 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार- Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 29/01/2016 Of The Cit(A)-8, Mumbai,The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed Present Appeal.The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Director Of M/S. Spellbound Trading Pvt. Ltd. Details Of Dates Of Filing Of Returns,Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessments & Assessed Incomes Can Be Tabulated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/Shri Abhijit Patankar & V. Vidhyadhar-CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…gued that as per the scheme of the Act income was to be taxed in the right hands and in the right assessment years,that owning of income by her husband no excuse for not assessing the income in the hands of the assessee.He referred to the cases of Ch.Atchaiah(218 ITR 239),Sirram Jagannath(250 ITR 689),S P Jaiswal (224 ITR 619).The Authorised Representative(AR)stated that same income could not be taxed in two hands,that department had assessed the disputed income in the hands of the husband of the assessee,that there was no justification in assessing the same income in her hands.He referred to the case of Ch.Atcha…