K.S.Subbiah Pillai v. CIT

237 ITR 11Supreme Court of India1999#23852 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing K.S.Subbiah Pillai v. CIT

M/S. Metalloyds, Angul vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 445/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Binod Agarwal ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

…arwal for services rendered is an allowable business expenditure and should be allowed in the hands of the firm. Ld A.R. strenuously contended that the CIT(A) has mis-interpreted the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Subbiah Pallai vs CIT, 237 ITR 11 (SC). In this judgement in para 2, Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the remuneration has been paid to HUF because of the investment of HUF funds in the business, then it was the income of HUF but if the remuneration was compensation made for services rendered P a g e 2 | 8 ITA Nos.445 & 521/CT K/2017 Asse ssment Years : 2 012 -13 & 20 13- 14 by…

Pr. Commsioner Od Nincome Tax vs. B. C. Management Services Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1064/2017HC Delhi28 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 100

…int of time blended or throwing or merger the suit property with the alleged HUF. To substantiate his argument defendant no. 2 relied the case laws titled as “ K. S. Subbiah Pillai Vs Commissioner of Income Tax” 1999 (3) SCC 170/1999 AIR (SC) 1220 /(1999) 237 ITR 11 (SC), Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi Vs Lakkaireddi Lakshmama 1963 AIR (SC) 1601/1964(2) SCR 172, G. Narayana Raju Vs G. Chamaraju 1968 AIR (SC) 1276/1968 Law Suit (SC) 167 and Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City VS Gordhandas K Vora 1973 LawSuit (Bom) 153/1974 (96) ITR 50. c) It is further argued by the defendant no. 2 that defendant…

M/S. Metalloyds, Angul vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

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

ITA 23/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Binod Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

….20,000/- per month from the firm. He further found that Bikram Agarwal is the karta of Bikram Agarwal (HUF) and Binay Agarwal is the kartka of Binay Agarwal (HUF). He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Subbiah Pillai vs CIT, 237 ITR 11 (SC) and held that Bikram Agarwal and Binay Agarwal cannot take any commission for doing any business of the partnership firm as per terms of partnership deed. Consequently, he disallowed deduction for commission payment of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. On appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee filed ledger copy of commission account, copy of income tax re…