Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT

27 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1955#3094 most cited

What is Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT authority for?

A shareholder has no interest in the property of a company. A shareholder's right is limited to participating in profits if and when the company decides to distribute them.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT · shareholder interest in company property · shareholder rights · company profits · corporate law

Sections most often in play

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 142adcf methodsanctioning authorityfull value of considerationapproval under section 151valuation of sharessection 151(2)extension of limitationblock of assetsshort term capital gainskelvinatorsection 48

Judgments citing Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT

Jan Kalyan Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5120/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)(e)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

…bmitted that a legal entity with an independent existence and identity in the eyes of law is distinct and different from its directors or shareholders or founder. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdarvs CIT reported in 27 ITR 1 has held that "there is nothing in the Indian law to warrant the assumption that a shareholder who buys shares buys any interest in the property of the company". It has been held therein as under: "It was argued by Mr. Kolah on the strength of an observation made by Lord Anderson in Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Forrest [1924] 8 Tax Cas. 704 a…

Sameer Gehlaut, London vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2532/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R
Section 144Section 147Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 28

…t legal entities and it is a settled law that a body corporate is a separate and distinct legal entity from its shareholders. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Bacha F Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 1 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court interalia held as under:- "It was argued by Mr. Kolah on the strength of an observation made by Lord Anderson in Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Forrest [1924] 8 Tax Cas.704 at 710that an investor buys in the first place a share of the assets of the industrial concern proportionate to the number of shares h…

Nina Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…ty of the company. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Page 15 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court for the proposition that "A shareholder has got no interest in the property of the company though he has undoubtedly a right to participate in the profits if and when the company decides to divide them”. 18. It was further submitted that the SHA read along with 'Put option exercise' notice dated 01.07.2015, s…

Hersh Vardhan Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…ty of the company. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Page 15 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court for the proposition that "A shareholder has got no interest in the property of the company though he has undoubtedly a right to participate in the profits if and when the company decides to divide them”. 18. It was further submitted that the SHA read along with 'Put option exercise' notice dated 01.07.2015, s…

Sangita Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…ty of the company. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Page 15 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 1 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court for the proposition that "A shareholder has got no interest in the property of the company though he has undoubtedly a right to participate in the profits if and when the company decides to divide them”. 18. It was further submitted that the SHA read along with 'Put option exercise' notice dated 01.07.2015, s…

Pradeep Wig, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Appellant Respondent Assessee by Revenue by No./BMA No. & Assessment Year ITAs No.405 Pradeep Wig, ACIT, Central Shri V.K. Ms Rajinder to 79, Sunder Nagar, Circle-5, New Bindal, CA, Kaur, CIT- DR 411/Del/2021 New Delhi -110 Delhi. Shri Saurabh AYs: 2011- 003. Sharma, Adv. 12 to 2017-18 PAN: & Ms Rinki AAAPW8331J Sharma, AR ITAs No. DCIT, Central Pradeep Wig, - DO - - DO - 153/Del/2022 Circle-5, New 79, Sunder Nagar, , Delhi New Delhi -110 716/Del/2021 003. &…

M/S. Allstate India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, D.R
Section 10ASection 139

…s rent, which has suffered the accident of non-payment. And rent is not land within the meaning of the definition." This definition was approved and reiterated in 1955 by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 1 (SC). It is clear, therefore, that the words 'derived from' is s.80HH of the IT Act, 1961 must be understood as something which has direct or immediate nexus with the appellant's industrial undertaking. Although electricity may be required for the purposes of the industrial undertaking, the deposit required for its supply is a step removed from the…

The Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax-15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gauri Tandon, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1846/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleacit – 15(1)(1) V. Gauri Tandon Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tandon Beach House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(Pt), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Aaapb4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Smiti Samant

Section 133(6)Section 54Section 54BSection 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT – 15(1)(1) V. Gauri Tandon Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tandon Beach House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(PT), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 PAN: AAAPB4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented by : Shri Smiti Samant Date of Hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against order…

Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur vs. M/S Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation

C.A. No.-004928 - 2018Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 65Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

…nterpret the statute according to its objects and purposes. 9. The word “firm” cannot include a company. The name of a partnership firm is a compendious method of describing the partners in a partnership firm as was laid down in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar, [1955] 27 ITR 1 (SC), Dulichand Laxminarayan, [1956] 29 ITR 535 (SC) and Malabar Fisheries Co., [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC). It is distinct from a company, a juristic person distinct from its shareholders; whereas a partnership firm comprises the partners and has no separate entity or existence without the partners. According to section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932, a…

Jaideep Sharad Kotwal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 454/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80I

…Act. The remuneration, share of profits received from the partnership firm is derived by the appellant based on the contractual relationship between the appellant and the partnership firm. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar vs. CIT, 27 ITR 1 (SC) held that a shareholder of company which carried on business of growing and manufacturing tea, the dividend income so received by assessee could not be treated as agricultural income. Same analogy can be drawn to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is totally devoid of any merit. 10. Further, it is signific…

Jaideep Sharad Kotwal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1099/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80I

…Act. The remuneration, share of profits received from the partnership firm is derived by the appellant based on the contractual relationship between the appellant and the partnership firm. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar vs. CIT, 27 ITR 1 (SC) held that a shareholder of company which carried on business of growing and manufacturing tea, the dividend income so received by assessee could not be treated as agricultural income. Same analogy can be drawn to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is totally devoid of any merit. 10. Further, it is signific…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1217/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…L, it cannot be said that the business carried on by RAL is the business carried on by the appellant. There is no doubt that RAL is a separate legal entity, and the appellant is also a separate legal person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar Vs CIT 27 ITR 1 has held that the shareholder and the company are two separate legal entities and the business carried on by the company cannot said to be a business carried on by the shareholder. Hence, the finding of the AO that the appellant will be taxed in respect of the activities carried out by M/s. RAL is totally untenable in law. 96. While discussing the…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1216/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…L, it cannot be said that the business carried on by RAL is the business carried on by the appellant. There is no doubt that RAL is a separate legal entity, and the appellant is also a separate legal person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar Vs CIT 27 ITR 1 has held that the shareholder and the company are two separate legal entities and the business carried on by the company cannot said to be a business carried on by the shareholder. Hence, the finding of the AO that the appellant will be taxed in respect of the activities carried out by M/s. RAL is totally untenable in law. 96. While discussing the…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1215/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…L, it cannot be said that the business carried on by RAL is the business carried on by the appellant. There is no doubt that RAL is a separate legal entity, and the appellant is also a separate legal person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar Vs CIT 27 ITR 1 has held that the shareholder and the company are two separate legal entities and the business carried on by the company cannot said to be a business carried on by the shareholder. Hence, the finding of the AO that the appellant will be taxed in respect of the activities carried out by M/s. RAL is totally untenable in law. 96. While discussing the…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1214/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…L, it cannot be said that the business carried on by RAL is the business carried on by the appellant. There is no doubt that RAL is a separate legal entity, and the appellant is also a separate legal person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar Vs CIT 27 ITR 1 has held that the shareholder and the company are two separate legal entities and the business carried on by the company cannot said to be a business carried on by the shareholder. Hence, the finding of the AO that the appellant will be taxed in respect of the activities carried out by M/s. RAL is totally untenable in law. 96. While discussing the…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1213/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…L, it cannot be said that the business carried on by RAL is the business carried on by the appellant. There is no doubt that RAL is a separate legal entity, and the appellant is also a separate legal person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar Vs CIT 27 ITR 1 has held that the shareholder and the company are two separate legal entities and the business carried on by the company cannot said to be a business carried on by the shareholder. Hence, the finding of the AO that the appellant will be taxed in respect of the activities carried out by M/s. RAL is totally untenable in law. 96. While discussing the…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1212/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…L, it cannot be said that the business carried on by RAL is the business carried on by the appellant. There is no doubt that RAL is a separate legal entity, and the appellant is also a separate legal person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar Vs CIT 27 ITR 1 has held that the shareholder and the company are two separate legal entities and the business carried on by the company cannot said to be a business carried on by the shareholder. Hence, the finding of the AO that the appellant will be taxed in respect of the activities carried out by M/s. RAL is totally untenable in law. 96. While discussing the…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1211/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…L, it cannot be said that the business carried on by RAL is the business carried on by the appellant. There is no doubt that RAL is a separate legal entity, and the appellant is also a separate legal person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar Vs CIT 27 ITR 1 has held that the shareholder and the company are two separate legal entities and the business carried on by the company cannot said to be a business carried on by the shareholder. Hence, the finding of the AO that the appellant will be taxed in respect of the activities carried out by M/s. RAL is totally untenable in law. 96. While discussing the…

Manjula Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3727/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manjula Finance Ltd, Vs. Ito, 28, Najafgarh Road, Ward-16(2), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacm6990N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 234B

…ed April 30, 1994 and call upon the authority to ignore the corporate existence of the appellant. This lifting of the corporate veil is not allowed when it is not for the benefit of the Revenue. The apex court in the case of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 1 (SC) ; [1955] 25 Comp Cas 1 (SC) has inter alia observed that "A shareholder has no interest in the property of the company . . . It has only a right to participate in the profits of the company as and when the company decides to divide them. The company is a juristic person and is distinct /different from its shareholders. It is the company which o…

DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai vs. Repco Home Finance P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

…T v. Sterling Foods reported in (1999) 237 ITR 579(SC) ; Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Limited v. CIT reported in (1978) 113 ITR 84(SC), Pandian Chemicals Limited v. CIT reported in (2003) 262 ITR 278(SC) and Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 1(SC) are relevant to support the aforesaid proposition of law. The provisions of Section 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act has also referred to Profits ‘derived’ and hence direct and immediate nexus of Profits and the business of providing long term finance for construction or purchase of house in India for residential purposes is to be seen. On this th…

Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT (27 ITR 1) — Cited in 38 Judgments | BharatTax