What is Murugesan (G.) & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

An association of persons (AOP) is constituted when individuals voluntarily combine for a common purpose or action, aiming to produce income. Merely sharing income or jointly owning property is insufficient to form an AOP.

Murugesan (G.) & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (88 ITR 432)

Q: How many judgments cite Murugesan (G.) & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite Murugesan (G.) & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (88 ITR 432), spanning 2012 to 2024.

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

…of CIT v. Indira Balkrishna [1960] 39 ITR 546 (SC) has held that to constitute an AOP, earning of income by joining together in a venture and sharing of profits or loss is essential. Further the Supreme Court in the case of G. Murugesan & Bros. v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 432 (SC) held that the finding members "joined for common purpose or common action" or they helped in producing income to form an AOP is essential. Thus, it is evident that there must be a common design to produce income and in the absence of such a common design, there cannot be an association. Mere existence of common interest or the fact that the p…

M/S Rithwik Rk Joint Venture vs. Pr. CIT, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 99/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR

Section 263

…OP. The learned DR has relied upon the following decisions as under:- “C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Indira Balakrishanan, (1960) 39 ITR 546,551 (S.C.) C.I.T. Vs. Buldana District Main Cloth Importers Group, (1961) 42 ITR 172 (S.C.). Murugesan & Brothers Vs. C.I.T. (1973) 88 ITR 432 (S.C.). V. Shanmugam & Co. Vs. C.I.T. (1971) 81 ITR 310 (S.C.) Birla Tyres Vs. JCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 915 (Cal.-T) (T.M.)” 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee Joint Venture was formed by its two partners namely M/s Rithwik Projects Private Limited & M/s R.K. Infra & Engineering (India) Pr…

M/S. Rithwik Rk Joint Venture, Hyderabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/ALLD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR

Section 263

…OP. The learned DR has relied upon the following decisions as under:- “C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Indira Balakrishanan, (1960) 39 ITR 546,551 (S.C.) C.I.T. Vs. Buldana District Main Cloth Importers Group, (1961) 42 ITR 172 (S.C.). Murugesan & Brothers Vs. C.I.T. (1973) 88 ITR 432 (S.C.). V. Shanmugam & Co. Vs. C.I.T. (1971) 81 ITR 310 (S.C.) Birla Tyres Vs. JCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 915 (Cal.-T) (T.M.)” 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee Joint Venture was formed by its two partners namely M/s Rithwik Projects Private Limited & M/s R.K. Infra & Engineering (India) Pr…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 392/JODH/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…fact made by an assessee constitutes an important piece of evidence but it is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted. It is rebuttable and it is open to the assessee who made admission to show that it is incorrect. [G. Morgues & Bros. Vs. C.I.T. (1973) 88 ITR 432 (SC)]. An admission made by the assessee before the Income-tax authorities is an important piece of evidence but he is entitled to show that such an admission was made out of ignorance of law or it was otherwise vitiated [C.I.T. v. Bhanwarlal 225 ITR 870 (Raj)]. the statement made by an assessee u/s 132 (4) is not always a universal truth. The st…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 266/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…fact made by an assessee constitutes an important piece of evidence but it is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted. It is rebuttable and it is open to the assessee who made admission to show that it is incorrect. [G. Morgues & Bros. Vs. C.I.T. (1973) 88 ITR 432 (SC)]. An admission made by the assessee before the Income-tax authorities is an important piece of evidence but he is entitled to show that such an admission was made out of ignorance of law or it was otherwise vitiated [C.I.T. v. Bhanwarlal 225 ITR 870 (Raj)]. the statement made by an assessee u/s 132 (4) is not always a universal truth. The st…

Shri Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1063/RJT/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1063/Rjt/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) बनाम/ Shri Shantilal Jain, I.T.O, 41, Usha, Ward-2, Vs. 161, S.V.Road, Bhuj. Vile Parle(West) Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepj8434B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 19/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ii, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 02/09/2009, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 29/12/2006 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2002-03. A.Y. 2002-03 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147

…arried out by the DRI as AOP without bringing in anything on record to establish the existence of an AOP. 12. Therefore, the assessment made in the status of AOP is void ab initio. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: • G. Murugesan & Bros. Vs. CIT [88 ITR 432 (SC)] - Copy enclosed • Wajrachand G. Jain & Ors. Vs. ACIT [76 TTJ 101 (Pune)] - Copy enclosed Re: Considering appellant as member of AOP : 1. The appellant was the director of M/s Kandla clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Which function as a CHA. He is not connected, directly of indirectly, with Shivam Development Trust, the trust whose letter were used f…

Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 4929/Del/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4929/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishipico Deepali Overlays Consortium, Vs. Acit, (By Deepali Designs Exhibits P. Ltd As Central Circle-8, Alleged Member), New Delhi Plot No. 17, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Central Market, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Pan: Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent) Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, As Alleged Member Of M/S. Pico Central Circle-8, Deepali Overlays Consortium, New Delhi Plot No. 17, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Central Market, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Pan: Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 177Section 177(3)Section 2(7)Section 253

…a member of an AOP and had no role, involvement etc. in the assessment proceedings and the first appellate proceedings.) 5. In addition to the above, the remand report has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in G. Murugesan & Brothers v CIT, 88 ITR 432 (SC). However, the PICO Deepali Overlays consortium Vs. ACIT ITA No. 1561/Del/2017 &4929/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) AO has failed to realize that this judgment supports the case of assessee. The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that "An "association of persons" can be formed only when two or more individuals voluntarily combine togethe…

Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No. 4929/Del/2018 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1561/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishipico Deepali Overlays Consortium, Vs. Acit, (By Deepali Designs Exhibits P. Ltd As Central Circle-8, Alleged Member), New Delhi Plot No. 17, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Central Market, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Pan: Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent) Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, As Alleged Member Of M/S. Pico Central Circle-8, Deepali Overlays Consortium, New Delhi Plot No. 17, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Central Market, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi Pan: Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 177Section 177(3)Section 2(7)Section 253

…a member of an AOP and had no role, involvement etc. in the assessment proceedings and the first appellate proceedings.) 5. In addition to the above, the remand report has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in G. Murugesan & Brothers v CIT, 88 ITR 432 (SC). However, the PICO Deepali Overlays consortium Vs. ACIT ITA No. 1561/Del/2017 &4929/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) AO has failed to realize that this judgment supports the case of assessee. The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that "An "association of persons" can be formed only when two or more individuals voluntarily combine togethe…

Kirit D. Sanghvi and 2 Others, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6866/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6866/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 26

…order, then the A.O shall keeping in view the mandate of Sec. 26, as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court so passed in the case of : CIT Vs. Indra Bal Krishna (1960) 39 ITR 546 (SC) and G. Murugesan & Bros. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (1973) 88 ITR 432 (SC), wherein the Hon’be Apex Court had held that an AOP can come into existence only when two or more persons as per their volition had joined hands in a common purpose or common action for producing of income, therein adjudicate upon the claim of the assessee. That in case if it is gathered from the facts borne from the return of income of the a…

ITO vs. Sri. N.P. Bagwa & Others

In the result, all these appeals and cross objections are allowed

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1207 / 2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal

Section 201

…ITAs 53/2000, 251/2007, 253/2007, 257/2007, 223/2002 247/2002, 45/2005, 50/2005, 1207/2005, 361/2008, 482/2008, 731/2008, 1191/2008, 1183/2010, 1198/2010, 842/2011 and 246/2005 Page 1 of 50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 09.05.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 09.07.2012 + ITA 53/2000, ITA 251/2007, ITA 253/2007, ITA 257/2007 & ITA 223/2002 SHANKER T…

Murugesan (G.) & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax

What is Murugesan (G.) & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Also referred to as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Murugesan (G.) & Brothers v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

M/S Rithwik Rk Joint Venture vs. Pr. CIT, Allahabad

M/S. Rithwik Rk Joint Venture, Hyderabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

Shri Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj

Pico Deepali Overlays Consortium, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Deepali Designs & Exhibits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Kirit D. Sanghvi and 2 Others, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(1), Mumbai

ITO vs. Sri. N.P. Bagwa & Others

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Shankar Trading Co. P. Ltd

CIT vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Shankar Trading Co.P.Ltd

C.I.T vs. Shankar Trading Co. Pvt Ltd

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Shankar Trading Co. P.Ltd

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Trading Co. P. Ltd

Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S Shankar Trading Co.P.Ltd