Jit and Pal X-ray Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

267 ITR 370High Court2004#9635 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 12AA

Issues it is cited on

section 11(2)(a)section 10(20a)section 10(20)section 58section 12aa(3)section 13(8)section 13(1)(d)section 80ib(10)section 11(3)legal expensessection 13(3)section 11(5)

Judgments citing Jit and Pal X-ray Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…f the computation of the income of the Parishad and the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, which the assessee had claimed on the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit and Pal X-ray Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 267 ITR 370, was not applicable to the instant case. He, therefore, confirmed the additions on account of the infrastructure fund that was made by the ld. AO. However, he directed the ld. AO allow the expenses made out of the said infrastructure fund as per Schedule 9A of the annual accounts, as application of income after verification of Form 10-B. 8. Comi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…f the computation of the income of the Parishad and the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, which the assessee had claimed on the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit and Pal X-ray Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 267 ITR 370, was not applicable to the instant case. He, therefore, confirmed the additions on account of the infrastructure fund that was made by the ld. AO. However, he directed the ld. AO allow the expenses made out of the said infrastructure fund as per Schedule 9A of the annual accounts, as application of income after verification of Form 10-B. 8. Comi…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12A

…f the computation of the income of the Parishad and the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, which the assessee had claimed on the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit and Pal X-ray Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 267 ITR 370, was not applicable to the instant case. He, therefore, confirmed the additions on account of the infrastructure fund that was made by the ld. AO. However, he directed the ld. AO allow the expenses made out of the said infrastructure fund as per Schedule 9A of the annual accounts, as application of income after verification of Form 10-B. 8. Comi…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

ITA 534/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel &
Section 11Section 12A

…f the computation of the income of the Parishad and the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, which the assessee had claimed on the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit and Pal X-ray Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 267 ITR 370, was not applicable to the instant case. He, therefore, confirmed the additions on account of the infrastructure fund that was made by the ld. AO. However, he directed the ld. AO allow the expenses made out of the said infrastructure fund as per Schedule 9A of the annual accounts, as application of income after verification of Form 10-B. 8. Comin…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…f the computation of the income of the Parishad and the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, which the assessee had claimed on the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit and Pal X-ray Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 267 ITR 370, was not applicable to the instant case. He, therefore, confirmed the additions on account of the infrastructure fund that was made by the ld. AO. However, he directed the ld. AO allow the expenses made out of the said infrastructure fund as per Schedule 9A of the annual accounts, as application of income after verification of Form 10-B. 8. Comin…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…f the computation of the income of the Parishad and the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, which the assessee had claimed on the strength of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit and Pal X-ray Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 267 ITR 370, was not applicable to the instant case. He, therefore, confirmed the additions on account of the infrastructure fund that was made by the ld. AO. However, he directed the ld. AO allow the expenses made out of the said infrastructure fund as per Schedule 9A of the annual accounts, as application of income after verification of Form 10-B. 8. Comi…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…tle’ in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT, 1961 41 ITR 624. It was further submitted that following the said decision, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit & Pal X-Rays Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 370, had held that where the obligation to pay an amount was attached to the very source of the income, it was not a case of mere applicable of income but it was a case of diversion of income by an overriding charge. It was submitted that as per the ‘Granter’, the fund so received by the appellant were to be utilized in a specified manner and the sam…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…tle’ in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT, 1961 41 ITR 624. It was further submitted that following the said decision, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit & Pal X-Rays Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 370, had held that where the obligation to pay an amount was attached to the very source of the income, it was not a case of mere applicable of income but it was a case of diversion of income by an overriding charge. It was submitted that as per the ‘Granter’, the fund so received by the appellant were to be utilized in a specified manner and the sam…

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…tle’ in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Provat Kumar Mitter vs. CIT, 1961 41 ITR 624. It was further submitted that following the said decision, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jit & Pal X-Rays Pvt. Ltd (2004) 267 ITR 370, had held that where the obligation to pay an amount was attached to the very source of the income, it was not a case of mere applicable of income but it was a case of diversion of income by an overriding charge. It was submitted that as per the ‘Granter’, the fund so received by the appellant were to be utilized in a specified manner and the sam…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…9-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co. 106 ITR 884 (Bom) 212-215 34 CIT Vs. Nariman B Bharucha & Sons 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 216-219 35 Jit and Pal X-Rays Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 267 ITR 370 (All) 220-223 36 CIT Vs. Varanasi Nagar Vikas 275 ITR 140 (All) 224-226 38 Soma Trg Joint Venture Vs CIT 398 ITR 425 (J & K) 234-239 40 CIT Vs. Patuck 71 ITR 713 (Bom) 246-256 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…9-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co. 106 ITR 884 (Bom) 212-215 34 CIT Vs. Nariman B Bharucha & Sons 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 216-219 35 Jit and Pal X-Rays Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 267 ITR 370 (All) 220-223 36 CIT Vs. Varanasi Nagar Vikas 275 ITR 140 (All) 224-226 38 Soma Trg Joint Venture Vs CIT 398 ITR 425 (J & K) 234-239 40 CIT Vs. Patuck 71 ITR 713 (Bom) 246-256 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.…

Jit and Pal X-ray Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (267 ITR 370) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax