Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT

1 SCR 988Reported decision1969#21771 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 197Section 245Q(1)Section 245R(2) proviso (iii) of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT

The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) vs. Tiger Global International II Holdings

C.A. No.-000262-000262 - 2026Supreme Court15 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

…eneficial] statute is sought to be evaded or where associated companies are inextricably connected as to be, in reality, part of one concern. 279. Lifting the corporate veil doctrine was also applied in Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT [AIR 1969 SC 932 : (1969) 1 SCR 988] , wherein this Court noticed that the assessee firm sought to avoid tax on the amount of compensation received for the loss of office by claiming that it was capital gain and it was found that the termination of the contract of managing agency was a collusive transaction. The Court held that it was a collusive device, practised by the managed…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Detergents India Ltd

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

…ciple was approved by this Court that the corporate veil could be lifted 25 Page 26 JUDGMENT where the companies shared the relationship of a holding company and a subsidiary company, and to Juggi Lal Kamlapat v.C.I.T. [AIR 1969 SC 932 : (1969) 1 SCR 988 : (1969) 73 ITR 702] where this Court held that the veil of corporate entity could be lifted to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade, for example, where the corporate entity was used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation.” 17. On a reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear that proviso (iii) would b…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/S. Detergents India Ltd

C.A. No.-009049-009051 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2015

Bench: Cegat Was Also Dismissed By The Impugned Judgment Dated 22.4.2003. 2

Section 4Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(4)(c)

…ciple was approved by this Court that the corporate veil could be lifted 25 Page 26 JUDGMENT where the companies shared the relationship of a holding company and a subsidiary company, and to Juggi Lal Kamlapat v.C.I.T. [AIR 1969 SC 932 : (1969) 1 SCR 988 : (1969) 73 ITR 702] where this Court held that the veil of corporate entity could be lifted to pay regard to the economic realities behind the legal facade, for example, where the corporate entity was used for tax evasion or to circumvent tax obligation.” 17. On a reading of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear that proviso (iii) would b…

Juggilal Kamlapat v. CIT (1 SCR 988) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax