Minakshiammal v. Chandrasekaran

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 vs. M/S. Saket Apartment (P) Ltd

Appeal is allowed and judgment dated

Bench: The Learned Probate Court. Digitally Signed By:Sonia Thapliyal Signing Date:18.03.2025 19:42:52 Signature Not Verified

…nother Vs. P.S. Rama Rao Pissey and Others; (2004) 11 SCC 320 Appreciation of evidence 7. i) Sridevi and Others Vs. Jayaraja Shetty and Others; (2005) 2 SCC 784 ii) Meenakshiammal (Dead) Through Lrs and Others Vs. Chandrasekaran and Another; (2005) 1 SCC 280 iii) Durlabh Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Atul Barthakur; (2005) 09 GAU CK 0068 iii) Daulat Ram and Others Vs. Sodha and Others; (2005) 1 SCC 40 Onus to prove the Will is always on Propounder Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:18.03.2025 19:42:52 Signature Not Verified ________________________________________________________…

Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Mitsui & Co. Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ng that the LO of the Assessee was a PE was not laid by the Revenue in the present case. According to him the conclusion drawn by the AO was based purely on surmises and conjectures. He placed reliance on the decision in Minakshiammal v. Chandrasekaran (2005) 1 SCC 280 which cited with ITA Nos. 13 and 334 of 2005 Page 14 of 24 approval the observations in R. v. Hodge 168 ER 1136. He submitted that in view of the mandate of the RBI, there was no question of on any business or trade being carried on in the LO. 26. Mr Nagi submitted that the onus of showing existence of PE lay on the Revenue. Inter alia, reliance…

Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Mitusi & Co. Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ng that the LO of the Assessee was a PE was not laid by the Revenue in the present case. According to him the conclusion drawn by the AO was based purely on surmises and conjectures. He placed reliance on the decision in Minakshiammal v. Chandrasekaran (2005) 1 SCC 280 which cited with ITA Nos. 13 and 334 of 2005 Page 14 of 24 approval the observations in R. v. Hodge 168 ER 1136. He submitted that in view of the mandate of the RBI, there was no question of on any business or trade being carried on in the LO. 26. Mr Nagi submitted that the onus of showing existence of PE lay on the Revenue. Inter alia, reliance…

M/S. Sukripam Worldwide, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2010-11 Sukripam Worldwide Vs. Acit, Circle 59(3) S 205, Rajkamal Sadan New Delhi Preet Vihar, Commercial Complex New Delhi

…f a living creature is brought forth, it can be said that it is produced. (See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. (1999 (3) SCC 632), Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa and Ors. v. M/s N.C. Budharaja and Company and Ors. (1994 Supp 1 SCC 280). Production or produce- The word `production' or `produce' when used in juxtaposition with the word `manufacture' takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process, which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the byproducts, intermediate products and residual products, which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods.…