K.A. Ramachar v. CIT

42 ITR 25Supreme Court of India1961#12818 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing K.A. Ramachar v. CIT

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 48

…17 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CLT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 2 18 Gujarat Municipal Finance Board vs. Dy. CIT (Assessment) 6 221 ITR 317 (Guj.) 19 Indermani Jatia vs. CIT 35 ITR 298 (SC) 5 K. | P. Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597(SC) 20 6 K.A. Ramachar v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 25 (SC) 21 24 K.A. Ramachar v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 25 (SC) 22 5 Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 1 (SC) 23 16 Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 323 (SC) 24 24 Nariman B. Bharucha’s case (1981) 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 25 9 P. C. Mullick vs. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 206 (SC) 26 13 Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) 2…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

ITA 4789/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 161Section 161(1)Section 61

…624 (SC) The facts in the case on hand are clearly different from the cited case, as the PTC holders have an undivided proportionate interest in the asset i.e. the receivable and have paid consideration for acquiring the same. (iv) K.A. Ramachar v. CIT[1961] 42 ITR 25 (SC) The Hon'ble Apex Court had concluded that income was not diverted by overriding title on the specific wording of the document that the amount was to be paid by the assessee from the income of the assessee and therefore the cited decision is not applicable in the present case on hand. (v) CIT v. Sunil J. Kinariwala[2003] 259 ITR 10/126 Taxman…

THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2428/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 43B

…rring to the decisions of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria -vs. - CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) and P.C. Mullick -vs.- CIT (1938) 6 ITR 206 (PC); of the Apex Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra), K.A. Ramachar -vs.- CIT (1961) 42 ITR 25 (SC); Motilal Chhadami Laljain (supra); CIT -Vs.- Baagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC) and Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 6.2-ITR 323 (SC), has held that if a third person becomes entitled to receive an amount under an obligation of an assessee even before he could claim to receive it as his income, there would be a diversion of income b…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…rring to the decisions of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria –vs. – CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) and P.C. Mullick –vs.- CIT (1938) 6 ITR 206 (PC); of the Apex Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra), K.A. Ramachar –vs.- CIT (1961) 42 ITR 25 (SC); Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain (supra); CIT –Vs.- Baagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC) and Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 6.2-iTR 323 (SC), has held that if a third person becomes entitled to receive an amount under an obligation of an assessee even before he could claim to receive it as his income, there would be a diversion of income…

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

INTEGRAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1075/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (ACIT)

Section 145Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

…er the reserve fund goes to any party other than the assessee itself, nor there is any obligation to provide for such reserve before it becomes the part of net income earned by the society. 39. In the like way is the case of K.A. Ramachar & Anr. v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 25 (SC), where though under the deed of settlement which was irrevocable, each of the beneficiaries of the settlement was entitled to receive 1/4 of the share of the settlement in the profits of the firm during a period of 8 years from the date of settlement, the beneficiaries were entitled to directly receive and collect from the firm their shares un…

CHIRAG RAJENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 24(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4086 To 4088/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Mr. Chirag Rajendra Shah Ito, Ward 24(1)(4), 502, 5Th Floor, C-13, D-305, Siddhi Vinayak Tower, बनाम/ Off Tank Road, Orlem, Malad, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-64 Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afxps 7904 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. K. Sharma & Ms. Taneshka Sharma ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…reliance on various decisions, namely, CIT v. Smt. Laxmi Mehrotra [(2014)] 222 Taxmann lll(Mag.) (All. HQ], Nivi Trading Ltd v. UOI (Bom)(HC), Mehta Parikh & Co Ltd. 30 ITR 181 (SC), Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd v ITO (Bombay High Court), Ramjidas Mahaiiram (1936) 42 ITR 25 (Cal), CIT v Dumraon Cold Storage & Refrigeration Service (1974) 97 ITR 137 (Patna), CIT v Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1972) 82 ITR 821 (SC), Thyyabali Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 661JTR 147 (SC) etc. 6. Considering the above submissions, as regards the reopening, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the same by obser…

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIZATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 14I, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…1 ITR 624 (SC) The facts in the case on hand are clearly different from the cited case, as the PTC holders have an undivided proportionate interest in the asset i.e. the receivable and have paid consideration for acquiring the same. (iv) K.A. Ramachar vs. CIT 42 ITR 25 (SC) The Hon'ble Apex Court had concluded that income was not diverted by overriding title on the specific wording of the document that the amount was to be paid by the assessee from the income of the assessee and therefore the cited decision is not applicable in the present case on hand. (v) CIT vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala 259 ITR 10 (SC) This decisio…