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-1, Bellary vs. Shri Vazhyiel House Narayanan Kutty Menon, Bellary

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1545/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate

…ome. A.13.10. In support, we refer to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd (supra) . Hon’ble Court while deciding the case referred to its coordinate bench decision in case of Morvi Industries Ltd vs CIT reported in (1971) 82 ITR 835. It was observed that income can be said to accrue, the moment it becomes due. It was further held that date of payment does not affect the accrual of income. The moment income accrues, assessee gets vested with the right to claim it, even though it may not be made immediately. Hence, receipt of the sale consideration on a later date would not pos…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…ome. A.13.10. In support, we refer to decision of Hon’able Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd (supra) . Hon’ble Court while deciding the case referred to its coordinate bench decision in case of Morvi Industries Ltd vs CIT reported in (1971) 82 ITR 835. It was observed that income can be said to accrue, the moment it becomes due. It was further held that date of payment does not affect the accrual of income. The moment income accrues, assessee gets vested with the right to claim it, even though it may not be made immediately. Hence, receipt of the sale consideration on a later date would not pos…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…ome. A.13.10. In support, we refer to decision of Hon’able Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd (supra) . Hon’ble Court while deciding the case referred to its coordinate bench decision in case of Morvi Industries Ltd vs CIT reported in (1971) 82 ITR 835. It was observed that income can be said to accrue, the moment it becomes due. It was further held that date of payment does not affect the accrual of income. The moment income accrues, assessee gets vested with the right to claim it, even though it may not be made immediately. Hence, receipt of the sale consideration on a later date would not pos…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…ome. A.13.10. In support, we refer to decision of Hon’able Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd (supra) . Hon’ble Court while deciding the case referred to its coordinate bench decision in case of Morvi Industries Ltd vs CIT reported in (1971) 82 ITR 835. It was observed that income can be said to accrue, the moment it becomes due. It was further held that date of payment does not affect the accrual of income. The moment income accrues, assessee gets vested with the right to claim it, even though it may not be made immediately. Hence, receipt of the sale consideration on a later date would not pos…

Pearl Coschem Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6611/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 45Section 5

…cquired a right to receive sale or right to the income, profits or gains has become vested in him as decided by the Supreme Court in the decision of CIT Vs. Shri Govardhan Ltd. 69 ITR 675. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morvi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 835 decided that the postponement of payment does not affect the accrual of the income. The fact that the amount of the income is not subsequently received by the assessee would not also detract from or efface the accrual of the income, although non receipt may in appropriate cases be a ground for playing deduction. 4.2.8 The appellant follows mercan…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

….2 of his order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that such an approach, apart from being unjust was also contrary to the settled binding judicial precedents. Reliance was placed on CIT v. Shoorji Valabhdas & Co [46 ITR 144 (SC)], Morvi Industries v. CIT [82 ITR 835 (SC)], Godhra Electricity Co. v. CIT [225 ITR 746 (SC)]. It was further argued that entry or absence in the books of accounts is not determinative of taxability of income or allowability of a deduction under the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not allowing the said grounds merely on the basis that the said on-money rece…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

….2 of his order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that such an approach, apart from being unjust was also contrary to the settled binding judicial precedents. Reliance was placed on CIT v. Shoorji Valabhdas & Co [46 ITR 144 (SC)], Morvi Industries v. CIT [82 ITR 835 (SC)], Godhra Electricity Co. v. CIT [225 ITR 746 (SC)]. It was further argued that entry or absence in the books of accounts is not determinative of taxability of income or allowability of a deduction under the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not allowing the said grounds merely on the basis that the said on-money rece…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…ome. A.13.10. In support, we refer to decision of Hon’able Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd (supra) . Hon’ble Court while deciding the case referred to its coordinate bench decision in case of Morvi Industries Ltd vs CIT reported in (1971) 82 ITR 835. It was observed that income can be said to accrue, the moment it becomes due. It was further held that date of payment does not affect the accrual of income. The moment income accrues, assessee gets vested with the right to claim it, even though it may not be made immediately. Hence, receipt of the sale consideration on a later date would not pos…

The Commissioner of Income - Tax vs. M/S Biocon Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/653/2013HC Karnataka11 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260ASection 37

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.653 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE BANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S BIOCON LTD. 20TH KM, HOSUR ROAD ELECTRONIC CITY HEBBAGODI BANGALORE - 560 100. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SE…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Medi Assist (India)

In the result, the third

ITA/593/2013HC Karnataka21 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(2)Section 260Section 260A

…bmitted that 8 the income accrues / arises when the assessee acquires a right to receive the same. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed in decision of the Supreme Court in 'MORVI INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', 82 ITR 835 and 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. GAJAPATHY NAIDU', 53 ITR 114. It is also urged that Accounting Standard -9 excludes insurance company and therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly rejected the contentions of the assessee and has followed the decision of this court wherein this court has held that 'business of third party agent is bus…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Karnataka Power Transmission

In the result, the appeal fails

ITA/196/2013HC Karnataka21 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 263

…and the amount / demand made by the assessee was legally due to it and therefore, the same accrued to it. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions 'MORVI INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC), 'KESHAV 9 MILLS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', (1953) 23 ITR 230 (SC) and 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS.A.GAJAPATHY NAIDU', (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the mercantile system and accrual system of accounting are synonymous. In this connection, reference h…

DCIT ( OSD) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Safari Mercantile P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4566/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 254o

…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. v. 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…

Red Fort Shahjahan Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Ys 2016-17]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R

…er of Income-tax v. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd., [1973] 89 ITR 255 which approved the view taken by the Bombay High Court in H.M. Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1960] 39 ITR 706, Morvi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1971] 82 ITR 835 as well as Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1965] 57 ITR 521. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considered by taking the…

Income Tax Officer 22(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Abdul Kayum Ahmed Mohd. Tamboli, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5851/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Lakhani-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Gerald-Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 53A

…ceived. Therefore, it is not a case where any consideration out of Rs.20 crores or part therefore (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. v. 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 8 Assessment Year :2009-10 application of formula in the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 itself makes the amount which is receivable as deferred consideration c…

Universal Medicare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

ITA 4418/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Shah AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 254(1)Section 50B

…following decisions:  CIT vs. Mrs. Hemal Raju Shete (239 Taxmann 176 (Bom. HC).  CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531(SC).  E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (AIR 1954 SC 470).  CIT vs. Excel Industries (358 ITR 295 SC).  Morvi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (82 ITR 835 SC).  Late Shri Gordhandas S. Garodia (Through LR’s vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5097/Mum/2015.  CIT vs. M/s Nagarjuna Fertiliser (ITTA No. 100 of 2003 (AP High Court.  DCIT vs. Rohan Projects (113 taxmann.com 339 Bom.) 23. The assessee has placed following documents on record;  (i) LTCG working statement from AY 2013-14 to 2015-16,  (ii) HSBC Bank Stat…

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd Through Its Authorized Signatory vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12 New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA/541/2019HC Delhi06 Feb 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…ITA 541/2019 Page 1 of 33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 6th November, 2019 Pronounced on: 6th February, 2020 + ITA 541/2019 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY..... Appellant Through: Mr. Gagan Kumar and Mr. Amit Kaushik, Advocates. versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 12 NEW DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain and Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV…

Jt. CIT -(OSD)-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3673/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Central Bank Of India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax – 2(1) Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Jt. Cit (Osd)-2(1)(2) Vs. Central Bank Of India R.No.561, 5Th Floor 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Chandermukhi Building Mumbai – 400 020 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacc2498P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By Shri V. Sreekar Date Of Hearing 16/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3739/Mum/2018 & 3673/Mum/2018 For A.Y.2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Dcit2(1) It- 44/Tr.4/16-17 Dated 30/01/2018 (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 25/03/2014 By The Ld. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…t such interest is accrued to the assessee. 7.5 reference is made in this regard to Supreme Court decisions in the case of E. D. Sasoon & Co. 26 ITR 27 and Shri Govardhan Ltd. 69 ITR 675. It has further been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Morvi Inds 82 ITR 835 that once the income is accrued, it is chargeable to tax even if subsequently the same is not actually receive or is forgone. It is thus, clear that the matter is not settled in favour of the assessee. 7.6 Reliance is also pleased on the Bombay High court order in the case of American Express Bank in view of the above, it is held that in a mercant…

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

…s. It was also submitted that interest on loan is not return on securities. In support thereof reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Shri Goverdhan Ltd.[1968] 69 ITR 675 and Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 835. 11.3.2 Revenue further contended that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied by the appellant in the case of Credit Suisse First Boston (Cyprus) Ltd. (supra) (Department's paper book Vol. II, pg. 227 to 234) was not applicable as the present case is not that of securities, as was the case before the Hon'ble High Court. According to…

Uniworth Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2554/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…upport of this principle, reliance was placed upon CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) which approved the view taken by the Bombay High Court in H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706 (Bom.), Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC) as well as Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC). In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows :— "The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considered by taking the probability o…

Uniworth Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2553/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…upport of this principle, reliance was placed upon CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC) which approved the view taken by the Bombay High Court in H.M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706 (Bom.), Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835 (SC) as well as Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC). In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows :— "The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considered by taking the probability o…