Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT

82 ITR 835Supreme Court of India1971#748 most cited

What is Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income accrues when it becomes due, vesting the assessee with the right to claim the amount, even if payment is not immediate. It requires a corresponding liability from the other party to pay, emphasizing real rather than hypothetical accrual, particularly for assessees using the mercantile system of accounting.

136

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT · accrual of income · real income principle · mercantile system of accounting · right to receive income · income becomes due · corresponding liability to pay · taxability timing · date of payment irrelevant to accrual

Also reported as

4 SCC 451

Sections most often in play

Section 1908Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

right to receivejdasection 48section 45section 17mercantile system of accountingdouble taxationprevious yearincome from other sourcestransfercompanysection 142(1)

Judgments citing Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 2(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 92/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Sahakari Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaaj0607P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263(1)

…ments, as under: 12 ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur Vs. M/s. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit (i) CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) (ii) P.G And W. Sawoo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 60 (SC) (iii) Morvi Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC) (iv) CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC) (v) E.D. Sasson & Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) (vi) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC) (vii) CIT Vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (1973) 89 ITR 266 (SC) (viii) CIT Vs. Suman Dhamija (2016) 382 ITR 343 (SC) (ix) CIT Vs. Bechtel International Inc. (2019) 41…

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Shriram Properties Principal Commissioner of Limited, v. Income Tax (Central), New No.9, Lakshmi Neela Rite Chennai -1. Choice Chambers, Bazullah Road, T-Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFCS-5801-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : S…

Principal Commr of Income Tax, Sambalpur vs. M/S Shree Metaliks Limited, Keonjhar

ITA/39/2023HC Orissa02 Mar 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2430/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., No. 692, Mhu Income Tax, Complex, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace1670K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds For The Assessment Year 2001-02: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 23.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.19/Cit(A)-9/2009-10) For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…cies 3.01.L(ii) that ₹.19,86,480/- being the interest on term loan due from Joint Venture Companies for the current year have not been included in the Profit & Loss account. As judicially held by Supreme Court in the case of Moris Industries Ltd., reported in 82 ITR 835, income can be said to accrue when it is due and postponement of payment does not affect the accrual of income. Hence, the assessee was asked to show cause why this amount of ₹.19,86,480/- should not be treated as the income of the company for the assessment year 2003-04. In response, the assessee submitted that the interest on the loan given to t…

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2429/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., No. 692, Mhu Income Tax, Complex, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace1670K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds For The Assessment Year 2001-02: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 23.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.19/Cit(A)-9/2009-10) For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…cies 3.01.L(ii) that ₹.19,86,480/- being the interest on term loan due from Joint Venture Companies for the current year have not been included in the Profit & Loss account. As judicially held by Supreme Court in the case of Moris Industries Ltd., reported in 82 ITR 835, income can be said to accrue when it is due and postponement of payment does not affect the accrual of income. Hence, the assessee was asked to show cause why this amount of ₹.19,86,480/- should not be treated as the income of the company for the assessment year 2003-04. In response, the assessee submitted that the interest on the loan given to t…

Sandhu Builders, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2002/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sandhu Builders, Acit-19(3), Sandhu Palace, 41, Pali Hill, Matru Mandir Tardeo, Bandra (W), Vs. Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaxfs 4480 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. Desai Revenue By : Mr. Vinay Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. DesaiFor Respondent: Mr. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…accrue or the liability to be incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also clarified in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 clarified in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 clarified in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, subsequently, it is forgone and no subsequently…

Sandhu Builders, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2001/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sandhu Builders, Acit-19(3), Sandhu Palace, 41, Pali Hill, Matru Mandir Tardeo, Bandra (W), Vs. Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaxfs 4480 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. Desai Revenue By : Mr. Vinay Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. DesaiFor Respondent: Mr. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…accrue or the liability to be incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also clarified in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 clarified in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 clarified in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, subsequently, it is forgone and no subsequently…

Sandhu Builders, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, all all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2000/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sandhu Builders, Acit-19(3), Sandhu Palace, 41, Pali Hill, Matru Mandir Tardeo, Bandra (W), Vs. Mumbai-400034. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaxfs 4480 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. Desai Revenue By : Mr. Vinay Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi, Adv./S.K. DesaiFor Respondent: Mr. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…accrue or the liability to be incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also incurred for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. It is also clarified in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 clarified in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 clarified in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, (SC) that once accrued, it is liable to the charge even if, subsequently, it is forgone and no subsequently…

Siddharth Developers, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax CC-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blesiddharth Developers V. Acit – Central Circle – 5(3) 205 Commerce House Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor 140 N.M. Road, Fort Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400023 Pan: Abffs4068J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishit Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Salil Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…but also against the settled principle that only Real Income can be brought to tax and not any hypothetical income [Ref. Godhra Electricity Cows CIT-(1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC), CIT us Shoorji Vallabhdas & Ca-(1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC), Morvi Industries vs CIT-(1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC), et. al.] In the present case the AO is seeking to tax the hypothetical income which has never been earned. In fact even after adding the amount of Rs.8,93,57,550/- being 17 Siddharth Developers consideration as per stamp duty value in terms of section 43CA of the Act [Ref pg.38 of PH) there is still a huge loss in the project. As such, the…

The Deputy Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. Shri Girish R. Tanti, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 113/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2011-12 The Dy. CIT, Shri Girish R. Tanti, Circle-2(1), Rachana, 3-Nalanada Rajkot Vs Society, Kalavad Road, (Appellant) Rajkot PAN: ABFPT3310E (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 20-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 31-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against th…

DCIT - 10(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Phonographic Performance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2976/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 33

…embers, there would be no income in the hands of the assessee". 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in relying upon the Apex court decision in the cases Shoorji Vallabhdas 46 ITR 144(SC), Morvi Insdustries 82 ITR 835 & Godhra Electricity Co 225 ITR 746, without considering the fact of the case". 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in relying upon the Bombay High court decision in the case of CIT Vs Neon Solution Pvt. Ltd., without considering the fact of the case". 3. The brief facts of the case are that t…

PCIT, Delhi-7 vs. Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd

ITA/264/2022HC Delhi29 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

…hat apart, we are of the view that the judgment rendered in Excel Industries Ltd. would not further the cause of the appellant. The other judgment that Mr Agarwal relies on is Morvi Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Calcutta, (1972) 4 SCC 451. We need not elaborate on this judgment, as the said judgment has been discussed and referred to in Excel Industries Ltd. 23. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are unable to persuade ourselves, that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. 24. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Mysuru vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Limited, Mysuru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2551/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2Section 288Section 35ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 48Section 49Section 50B

…received. Therefore it is not a case where any consideration out of Rs.20 crores or part thereof (after reducing Rs.2.70 crores) has been received or has accrued to the respondent assessee. As observed by the Apex Court in Morvi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 835. “The income can be said to accrue when it becomes due.... The moment the income accrues, the assessee gets vested right to claim that amount, even though not immediately.” In fact the application of formula in the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 itself makes the amount which is receivable as deferred consideration contingent upon the profits o…

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and Revenue is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1467/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/AmolFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1467/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt. ACIT-6(3) बिधम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly known as Mylan Mumbai. India Pvt. Ltd. and earlier to that as Merck Development Centre Pvt. Ltd.) One India Bulls Centre, Tower 2B, 7th Floor, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, (W), Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1283/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT, Cir-6(3) बिधम/ Mylan Pharmaceuticals Room No.522, 5th…

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Mylan Developemtnt Centre P.Ltd ( Formelry Merck Development Centre P.Ltd ), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and Revenue is partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1283/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/AmolFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1467/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt. ACIT-6(3) बिधम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly known as Mylan Mumbai. India Pvt. Ltd. and earlier to that as Merck Development Centre Pvt. Ltd.) One India Bulls Centre, Tower 2B, 7th Floor, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, (W), Mumbai-400013. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1283/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT, Cir-6(3) बिधम/ Mylan Pharmaceuticals Room No.522, 5th…

Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Alpha Beta Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 797/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(3)

…versy in the present case is not about method of accounting and rather is that no “transfer of asset” has taken place and thus no income has even accrued to the assessee. Case of assessee is merely of an accounting entry being passed mistakenly. (iii) [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC) Morvi Industries Ltd. vs CIT: In this case, addition was made by ld.AO on the ground that assessee had relinquished its rights to receive certain income after it accrued to the assessee and it was held that assessee could not escape tax liability with such unilateral act of relinquishment. Whereas in the case of assessee no income has accrued…

Havells India Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT (Ltu), Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6509/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manvendra Goyal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80ISection 92BSection 92C

…not earned any Income, the same cannot be taxed. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon in the case of CIT Vs. KRMTT Thiagaraja Chetty & Co., reported in 24 ITR 525 (SC) & in the case of Morvi Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT reported 19 Havells India Ltd. In 82 ITR 835 (SC) for the proposition that liability to tax can arise only when there Is Income. No tax can be charged as notional income on accrual. Further reliance has been placed upon the ruling of Authority for Advance Rulings delivered in the case of Veneburg Group B.V. Vs. CIT 727 of 2006 for the proposition that in the absence of any income, transfer P…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2959/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ccrual nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account.” 18. The above passage was cited with approval in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC) in which this Court also considered the dictionary meaning of the word “accrue” and held that income can be said to accrue when it becomes due. It was then observed that: “........ the date of payment ....... does not affect the accrual of income. The moment the income accrues, the assessee gets vested with the right to claim that amount even…

George Maijo Industries (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-II (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…ccrual nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account.” 18. The above passage was cited with approval in Morvi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC) in which this Court also considered the dictionary meaning of the word “accrue” and held that income can be said to accrue when it becomes due. It was then observed that: “........ the date of payment ....... does not affect the accrual of income. The moment the income accrues, the assessee gets vested with the right to claim that amount even…

Jechins Pharmaceuticals Limited (in Liqn.), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 2(47)Section 529A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 367/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Jechins Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (in Vs. ITO Liqn.), C/o. Official Liquidator, Ward-2(1)(2), Jivabhai Chambers, Ashram Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad-380009 [PAN No. AABCJ2444F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mukund Bakshi, AR Revenue by : Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 17.11.2021 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant app…