P.Krishna Menon v. CIT

35 ITR 48Supreme Court of India1959#5614 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2022.

Judgments citing P.Krishna Menon v. CIT

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…not relevant for determining whether an activity carried on by the Assessee is business or not. Reliance was further placed on the decisions of Trimala Tirupati Devasthnam vs. Management & ors. — AIR 1980 Supreme Court 604 and also P. Krishna Menon vs. CIT — 35 ITR 48 to substantiate the argument that one did not look at the profit motive to decide as to whether the activity is in the nature of business or not. The Ld DR, accordingly, submitted that the activity of the Assessee is commercial in nature and is, therefore, to be regarded as carrying on business activity. Hence, the proviso to section 2(15) of the A…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…not relevant for determining whether an activity carried on by the Assessee is business or not. Reliance was further placed on the decisions of Trimala Tirupati Devasthnam vs. Management & ors. — AIR 1980 Supreme Court 604 and also P. Krishna Menon vs. CIT — 35 ITR 48 to substantiate the argument that one did not look at the profit motive to decide as to whether the activity is in the nature of business or not. The Ld DR, accordingly, submitted that the activity of the Assessee is commercial in nature and is, therefore, to be regarded as carrying on business activity. Hence, the proviso to section 2(15) of the A…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…not relevant for determining whether an activity carried on by the Assessee is business or not. Reliance was further placed on the decisions of Trimala Tirupati Devasthnam vs. Management & ors. — AIR 1980 Supreme Court 604 and also P. Krishna Menon vs. CIT — 35 ITR 48 to substantiate the argument that one did not look at the profit motive to decide as to whether the activity is in the nature of business or not. The Ld DR, accordingly, submitted that the activity of the Assessee is commercial in nature and is, therefore, to be regarded as carrying on business activity. Hence, the proviso to section 2(15) of the A…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…not relevant for determining whether an activity carried on by the Assessee is business or not. Reliance was further placed on the decisions of Trimala Tirupati Devasthnam vs. Management & ors. — AIR 1980 Supreme Court 604 and also P. Krishna Menon vs. CIT — 35 ITR 48 to substantiate the argument that one did not look at the profit motive to decide as to whether the activity is in the nature of business or not. The Ld DR, accordingly, submitted that the activity of the Assessee is commercial in nature and is, therefore, to be regarded as carrying on business activity. Hence, the proviso to section 2(15) of the A…

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…not relevant for determining whether an activity carried on by the Assessee is business or not. Reliance was further placed on the decisions of Trimala Tirupati Devasthnam vs. Management & ors. — AIR 1980 Supreme Court 604 and also P. Krishna Menon vs. CIT — 35 ITR 48 to substantiate the argument that one did not look at the profit motive to decide as to whether the activity is in the nature of business or not. The Ld DR, accordingly, submitted that the activity of the Assessee is commercial in nature and is, therefore, to be regarded as carrying on business activity. Hence, the proviso to section 2(15) of the A…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 943/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities which is in the nature of trade. His next submission was ITA Nos.1066 to 1068, 720, 721, 726, 727, 941 to 943/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16 that the learned CIT(A) in coming to the conclusion that the Assessee is not hit by the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act, wrongly pla…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 941/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities which is in the nature of trade. His next submission was ITA Nos.1066 to 1068, 720, 721, 726, 727, 941 to 943/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16 that the learned CIT(A) in coming to the conclusion that the Assessee is not hit by the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act, wrongly pla…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 727/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities which is in the nature of trade. His next submission was ITA Nos.1066 to 1068, 720, 721, 726, 727, 941 to 943/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16 that the learned CIT(A) in coming to the conclusion that the Assessee is not hit by the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act, wrongly pla…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPORATION , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 726/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities which is in the nature of trade. His next submission was ITA Nos.1066 to 1068, 720, 721, 726, 727, 941 to 943/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16 that the learned CIT(A) in coming to the conclusion that the Assessee is not hit by the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act, wrongly pla…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 721/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities which is in the nature of trade. His next submission was ITA Nos.1066 to 1068, 720, 721, 726, 727, 941 to 943/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16 that the learned CIT(A) in coming to the conclusion that the Assessee is not hit by the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act, wrongly pla…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 720/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities which is in the nature of trade. His next submission was ITA Nos.1066 to 1068, 720, 721, 726, 727, 941 to 943/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16 that the learned CIT(A) in coming to the conclusion that the Assessee is not hit by the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act, wrongly pla…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1068/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities which is in the nature of trade. His next submission was ITA Nos.1066 to 1068, 720, 721, 726, 727, 941 to 943/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16 that the learned CIT(A) in coming to the conclusion that the Assessee is not hit by the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act, wrongly pla…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1066/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

…333)(Del). 10. Ld. DR, however, submitted that profit motive is irrelevant and what has to be seen is the actual nature of activities carried on by the Assessee and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Krishna Menon Vs. CIT 35 ITR 48(SC). He reiterated the stand of the AO that the Assessee as carrying on activities which is in the nature of trade. His next submission was ITA Nos.1066 to 1068, 720, 721, 726, 727, 941 to 943/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 16 that the learned CIT(A) in coming to the conclusion that the Assessee is not hit by the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act, wrongly pla…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ESCORT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3652/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)

…2 (Delhi), it was held that when the assessee devoted his time and attention to the formation and promotion of a company he could be said to be engaged in a vocation/occupation. The Hon'ble Suprme Court went further in the case of Shri P.Krishnamenon Vs. CIT, 35 ITR 48 to hold that the term business includes vocation and receipts even without any profit motive could be held to be taxable income. In the case of M/s Escorts Limited, a charitable trust was first set up in Delhi of which M/s Escorts Limited was the prime promotor. Later on in 1999, a society which was not having charitable purpose was set up in Chand…

SH. RAJ KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 2821/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 24(1) A 2/31, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi 110 029 Pan: Aagpj 5125 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…ons of s.361(1)(iii) – India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (S.C.); State of Madras vs. GJ Coelbo (1964) 53 ITR 186 (SC), Nabadwip Chandra Roy vs. CIT (1962) 44 ITR 591 (Assam), CIT vs. Indian Bank Ltd. (1965) 56 ITR 77 (SC) and P.Krishna Menon vs. CIT 35 ITR 48 (SC) relied on; CIT vs. Model Mfg. Co. P.Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 767 (Cal.) distinguished.” 7.2. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panaji Goa vs. Phil Corpn. Ltd. 244 CTR 526 (Bom.) held as follows : “Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act – Interest on borrowed capital – assessee took loan from overdraft account and invested it into sister/s…

M/S GIVO LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2041/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…was compulsory on the part of the persons who paid it'. The liability to income-tax is not negatived merely by reason of the fact that there was no legal obligation on the part of the person who contributed the money to pay it - P. Krishna Menon v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 48 (sq. 8 I.T.A.No.2041/Del/2013 (x) In Dooars Tea Ltd. v. Commr. of Agri., IT (1963) 44 ITR 6, the Supreme Court has pointed out that it is necessary to bear in mind that the word 'income' as used in the Indian IT Act, 1922, is a word of elastic import and its extent and sweep are not controlled or limited by the use of the words 'profit and gains'…

AROON PURIE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA-232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…a journalist or publisher, the issue raised is whether the prize money is a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. The other aspect is whether the prize money is taxable under the head “income from other source”. 17. In Krishna Menon (P) vs. CIT, (1959) 35 ITR 48 (SC), the assessed, was a retired Inspector of Police, had extensively studied Vedantic philosophy and excelled in giving discourses on Vedantic thought. He had a number of disciples. On the question, whether the assessed was carrying on a business or a profession (including vocation), the Supreme Court observed that: “It is said that in ord…

AROON PURIE vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

ITA - 232 / 2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…a journalist or publisher, the issue raised is whether the prize money is a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. The other aspect is whether the prize money is taxable under the head “income from other source”. 17. In Krishna Menon (P) vs. CIT, (1959) 35 ITR 48 (SC), the assessed, was a retired Inspector of Police, had extensively studied Vedantic philosophy and excelled in giving discourses on Vedantic thought. He had a number of disciples. On the question, whether the assessed was carrying on a business or a profession (including vocation), the Supreme Court observed that: “It is said that in ord…

AROON PURIE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…a journalist or publisher, the issue raised is whether the prize money is a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. The other aspect is whether the prize money is taxable under the head “income from other source”. 17. In Krishna Menon (P) vs. CIT, (1959) 35 ITR 48 (SC), the assessed, was a retired Inspector of Police, had extensively studied Vedantic philosophy and excelled in giving discourses on Vedantic thought. He had a number of disciples. On the question, whether the assessed was carrying on a business or a profession (including vocation), the Supreme Court observed that: “It is said that in ord…

ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA - 183 / 2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…sions including the following: - “(i) Parry & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 269 ITR 177 (Mad.) (ii) Matheson Bosanquet Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 171 ITR 359 (Mad.) (iii) Bishamber Nath Swaroop Narain vs. CIT, 119 ITR 681 (All.) (iv) CIT vs. R.B. Jairam Valji, 35 ITR 48 (SC). 2010:DHC:5594-DB ITA No.183/2008 Page 12 of 31 (v) Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., 81 ITR 777 (Bom.) & (vi) Kettle Well Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 53 ITR 261 (SC).” 13. The question for our consideration, therefore, is whether…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2