Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (10\964)

158 ITR 810High Court1986#16909 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (10\964)

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., [NOW KNOWN AS PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP],KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 22, , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Price Waterhouse & Co, Kolkata (Now Versus Known As Price Waterhouse & Co Chartered Accountants Llp)

For Appellant: Shri C.S Agarwal, Sr. Adv., K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Bikash KumarFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 28Section 44A

…rovisions of Income tax Act. There may be dispute about its taxability under section 28 of the Income tax Act or section 56 of the Income tax Act which can be decided after making enquiry. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Eklingii Trust Vs CIT (158 ITR 810) has held that the name given to a transaction by the parties concerned does not necessarily decide the nature of transaction. In such situation the question always is what is the real character of the payment not what the parties call it. On the facts and circumstances the real character of the payment was not refundable casual receipt from grou…

JAGSON CARRIERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3541/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jagson Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), Mumbai. 501, 5Th Floor, Sterling Vs. Chamber, Poona Street, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai- 400009. Pan No. Aaacj9344H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr Bhupendra Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…osition to establish that the so-called investor had any profit motive, (vi) the appellant has not established/justified for the charging of share premium. Thereafter relying on the decision in CIT v. JD Italia (1993) 141 ITR 948, Eklingji Trust v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 810 (Raj), CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del) and CIT v. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC), the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act on the reason that the appellant failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and true nature of the entries. 8. Before us, the Ld. cou…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. CHITTRANJAN DUA, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5884/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…e memorandum of settlement is also liable to be brought under tax. 9. Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Cons…

MR. CHITTRANJAN DUA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…e memorandum of settlement is also liable to be brought under tax. 9. Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Cons…

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4860/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Prem Prakash PareekFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 68

…name given to a transaction by the parties concerned does not necessarily decide the nature of the transaction. In such a situation, the question always it what is the real character of the payment , not what the parties call it - Eklingji Trust v, CIT [1986] 158 ITR 810(Raj.). Book entries - the matter of taxability cannot be decided on the basis of the entries which the assesse may choose to make in his accounts but has to be decided in accordance with the previous of law - CIT v. Mogul Line Ltd. [1962] 46 ITR 590 (Bom.)- Alternatively , in the opinion of the AO the share premium charged was in excess of the i…

Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (10\964) (158 ITR 810) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax