JCIT v. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd.

324 ITR 170Supreme Court of India2010#14065 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 115JB Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)Section 68 Section 144B Section 2(14)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(15a)section 2(19aa)section 17(2)(iiia)section 72a section 17(2)minimum alternate tax resulting company section 72 scheme of arrangement demerger section 115jb(2)section 2(14)

Judgments citing JCIT v. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd.

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. DCIT, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAUPS0222Q Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Somya Jain, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/10/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1249/Del/2017 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida [hereinafter referred to…

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 486/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

…sculptures; (viii) any work of art; or (ix) bullion; 16. At the outset, it is evident that the aforesaid definition is restricted for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. We find that in JCIT v/s Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd., reported in [2010] 324 ITR 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: – “(vi) A particular word occurring in one section of the Act, having a particular object cannot carry the same meaning when used in different section of the same Act, which is enacted for different object. In other words, one word occurring in different sections of the Act can have different meani…

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 483/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

JUST DIAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 254/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 250

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143

…ns fails, the income will not be a part of the "total income" that can be brought to charge.' 11. This judgment has subsequently been followed in several judgments. The fairly recent judgment of this Court in Jt. CIT v. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 170/191 Taxman 165 (SC) referred to the aforesaid judgment and held as follows:— '23. In the aforesaid decision in Gold Coin case [(2008) 9 SCC 622 : (2008) 304 ITR 308] , the expression "income" in the statute appearing in Section 2(24) of the Act has been clarified to mean that it is an inclusive definition and includes losses, that is, negative pr…

M/S. MS SHOES EAST LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 116/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 1994-95

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 27I(1)(C)Section 69Section 80HSection 80I

…on the turnover of assessee, but cannot exonerate the assessee from penal consequences as per provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We also get support from the decision of Hon’ble Suspreme Court in the case of JCIT vs. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd., 324 ITR 170 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under : “The purpose behind s. 271(1)(c) is to penalise the assessee for (a) concealing particulars of income and/or (b) furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Whether income returned was a profit or loss, was really of no consequence. Therefore, even if no tax was payable, the penalty was stil…

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

Section 50B

…cases that a particular word occurring in one section of the Act, having a particular object cannot carry same meaning when used in different section of the same Act, which is enacted for different object. In JCIT v. Saheli Leasing and Industries Ltd. [(2010) 324 ITR 170 (SC)] Their Lordships have held in para 34(vi) that : “one word occurring in different sections of the Act can have different meaning, if the object of the two sections are different and when both operate in different fields”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CGT v. N.S.Getti Chettiar [(1971) 82 ITR 599 (SC)] noted that the dictionary giv…