Page 32 of 66 CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai

56 ITR 42Supreme Court of India1965#1639 most cited

What is Page 32 of 66 CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai authority for?

Income accrues or arises to an assessee when the right to receive it vests with the assessee, not necessarily upon actual receipt.

69

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai · 56 ITR 42 · SC · income accrues or arises · right to receive · vesting of income

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

Issues it is cited on

right to receivejdaprincipal officermercantile system of accountingsection 254(1)section 5(1)liable to taxsection 254income from other sourcessection 43section 37(1)levy of penalty

Judgments citing Page 32 of 66 CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC), CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 103/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

…the assessee's claim. Various contentions were sought to be canvassed before the learned High Court. The High Court noted the legal position as to when accrual of profits can be said to have accrued. It considered the case of CIT Vs Ashokbhai Chimanbhi [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC) and noted that the words "accrue" and "arise" are used to contradistinguish the word 'receive'. Income is said to be received when it reaches the assessee. When the right to receive the income becomes vested in the assessee, it is said to accrue or arise. Dealing with profits, this is what the learned Court said: "Profits do not accrue from da…

Shree Narmada Khand Udyog Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)

…the assessee's claim. Various contentions were sought to be canvassed before the learned High Court. The High Court noted the legal position as to when accrual of profits can be said to have accrued. It considered the case of CIT Vs Ashokbhai Chimanbhi [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC) and noted that the words "accrue" and "arise" are used to contradistinguish the word 'receive'. Income is said to be received when it reaches the assessee. When the right to receive the income becomes vested in the assessee, it is said to accrue or arise. Dealing with profits, this is what the learned Court said: "Profits do not accrue from da…

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)

…. 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) 414 ITR 558 (Bom. HC) (x) CIT Vs. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. (2…

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…16 (or 30/11/2016, the date of surrender) on which it admittedly was, even paying tax thereon, but only after the conclusion of the year/accounting period for which the profits are under law to be determined. As explained in CIT vs Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC), profits do not accrue from day to day or even from month to month, and have to be ascertained by a comparison of assets at two stated points. Unless the right to profit comes into existence, there is no accrual of profit, and the destination of profit must be determined by the title thereto on the day on which they arise. The concept of accru…

Ramesh Premji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

For Appellant: Shri Subhas BainsFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 71

…on the decision of the Tribunal (Delhi) in the case of ACIT Vs. Sanjay Passi in ITA. No.1450/Del/2015 for AY 2012-13 dated 11.07.2018 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT 6 A.Y. 2012-13 Ramesh Premji Shah Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - "6. In the gross receipts of a business day after day or from transaction to transaction lies embedded or dormant profit or loss; on such dormant profit or loss undoubtedly taxable profits, if any, of the business will be computed. But dormant profits cannot be equated with profits charged…

Dr. L.S. Ravi Prakash, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 30/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 78

…ts of the company prior to three successive previous years immediately preceding the previous year in which such acquisition took place”. The Ahmedabad bench of Tribunal noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Asokbhai Chimanbhai (1965)(56 ITR 42) has held that the profits do not accrue from day to day or even from month to month and have to be ascertained by a comparison of assets at two stated points. It was further held that unless the right to profits comes into existence there is no accrual of profits and the destination of profits must be determined by the title thereto on the day on…

Springer Nature Customer Services Centre Gmbh, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Internationalo Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2534/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Springer Nature Customer Services Vs Jcit Centre Gmbh (Earlier Known As (International Taxation), Springer Customer Centre Gmbh), Circle-3(1)(2), 7Th Floor, Vijaya Building, New Delhi. 17-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aascs1092B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, Bhuwan Dhooper & Vibhu Gupta, Advocates Respondent By Ms. Rashmita Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2022

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 9(1)(vi)

…ple of law that what can be taxed is the ‘real income’ and not any notional/ hypothetical income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents: • E. D. Sassoon & Co. vs CIT: [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) • CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai: [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC) • CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.: [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC) • CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.: [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) • Godhra Electricity Company V CIT: [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) • CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.: (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) 12 | P a g e Ground No. 4: Interest charged under section 234A and 234B of the Act 4.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Jabalpur vs. Shri Sandesh Kumar Jain, Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 41/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…16 (or 30/11/2016, the date of surrender) on which it admittedly was, even paying tax thereon, but only after the conclusion of the year/accounting period for which the profits are under law to be determined. As explained in CIT vs Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC), profits do not accrue from day to day or even from month to month, and have to be ascertained by a comparison of assets at two stated points. Unless the right to profit comes into existence, there is no accrual of profit, and the destination of profit must be determined by the title thereto on the day on which they arise. The concept of accru…

Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1, Nashik

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

ITA 609/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri Pamod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…sidering accumulated profit of M/s. JREPL at Rs1,63,91,548/- as on 31.03.2012. The appellant has contended that accumulated profit would not include current business profits earned during the year as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (56 ITR 42) and followed by ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of M.B. Stock Holding Pvt. Ltd. It was contended that M/s. JREPL had accumulated profit of Rs.46,36,756/- as on 01.04.2011. Therefore, deemed dividend has to be computed with reference to this amount and the profit of the current previous year was not to be considered as accumulated profit. I find merit in t…

M/S Assetz Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the grounds 3

ITA 563/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 2(22)(e)

…Holding (P) Ltd (2003)(84 ITD 542)(Ahd.), wherein it was held that the accumulated profits do not include current year’s business profit. The Special bench has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965)(56 ITR 42), wherein it has been held that the profits of business do not accrue from day-to-day or even from month to month and have to be ascertained by a comparison of assets at two stated points. Accordingly, it was held that the current year’s business profit would accrue at the end of year only. 11. The Ld A.R sought to distinguish above said principle…

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

…ertained - CIT v. Shri Goverdhan Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 675 (SC) / CIT v. Nandram Hunatram (1976) 103 ITR 433 (On). Receipt is not the only test of chargeability to tax, if income arises or accrues, it may become liable to tax - CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC) / CIT v. A.B.V Gowda (1986) 157 ITR 697 (Kar). Each year being a self contained unit, taxes of particular year is payable with reference to the income of that year as computed in terms of the Act - CIT Vs. British Paints India Ltd. (SC) 188 ITR 44. Accordingly, a sum equivalent to e-auction sale proceeds accrued / arised to the assessee for th…

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

…ertained - CIT v. Shri Goverdhan Ltd. (1968) 69 ITR 675 (SC) / CIT v. Nandram Hunatram (1976) 103 ITR 433 (On). Receipt is not the only test of chargeability to tax, if income arises or accrues, it may become liable to tax - CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC) / CIT v. A.B.V Gowda (1986) 157 ITR 697 (Kar). Each year being a self contained unit, taxes of particular year is payable with reference to the income of that year as computed in terms of the Act - CIT Vs. British Paints India Ltd. (SC) 188 ITR 44. Accordingly, a sum equivalent to e-auction sale proceeds accrued / arised to the assessee for th…

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

… CIT vs. Rohtak Textiles Ltd. 138 ITR 195 (Del.)  Ajay Guliya vs. ACIT [2012] 24 taxman.com 276(Del.) dt. 16.07.2012.  E.D. Sasson & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (267 ITR 27 (SC).  Morvi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835.  CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC).  CIT vs. Equinox Solution (P.) Ltd. [2017] 393 ITR 566 (SC). ITA No. 4418 M 16 & C.O. 268 M 17-Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 27. The ld. DR for the revenue also furnished her written submission running into 22 pages. The relevant part of her submission are extracted below : 1. Clearly the deduction claimed by the appellant on account of…

Neelu Analjit Singh, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

ITA 2172/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Senior
Section 2Section 45

…he act, and submitted that in its plain meaning the equity shares of a unlisted company can only become long term assets if held for more than 36 months. c. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Asoka Chimanbhai 56 ITR 42 wherein in para number 6 it is held that under the income tax act income is taxable when it accrues, arises or is received or when it is by fixation deemed to accrue, arise or is deemed to be received. He submitted that receipt is not the only test of chargeability of tax if income accrues or arises it may become liable to tax. He submitted that th…

M/S Nokia Corporation, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee on the grounds- a

ITA 5819/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1006/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1007/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1008/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5819/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Nokia Corporation Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, (Formerly Nokia Networks Oy) New Delhi C/O Tarandeep Singh, F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3748E Ita No. 1236/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1237/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1238/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

…somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27, CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 and Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1997] 225 ITR 746/91 Taxman 351. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA Nos. 1006 to 1008, 1236 42 to 1238 & 5819/Del/2010 Nokia Corporation State Bank of Travancore, (supra) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Nokia Corportion, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee on the grounds- a

ITA 1237/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1006/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1007/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1008/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5819/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Nokia Corporation Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, (Formerly Nokia Networks Oy) New Delhi C/O Tarandeep Singh, F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3748E Ita No. 1236/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1237/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1238/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

…somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27, CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 and Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1997] 225 ITR 746/91 Taxman 351. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA Nos. 1006 to 1008, 1236 42 to 1238 & 5819/Del/2010 Nokia Corporation State Bank of Travancore, (supra) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Nokia Corportion, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee on the grounds- a

ITA 1236/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1006/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1007/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1008/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5819/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Nokia Corporation Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, (Formerly Nokia Networks Oy) New Delhi C/O Tarandeep Singh, F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3748E Ita No. 1236/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1237/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1238/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

…somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27, CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 and Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1997] 225 ITR 746/91 Taxman 351. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA Nos. 1006 to 1008, 1236 42 to 1238 & 5819/Del/2010 Nokia Corporation State Bank of Travancore, (supra) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has…

M/S. Nokia Corporation (Formerly Nokia Networks Oy), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee on the grounds- a

ITA 1007/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1006/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1007/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1008/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5819/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Nokia Corporation Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, (Formerly Nokia Networks Oy) New Delhi C/O Tarandeep Singh, F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3748E Ita No. 1236/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1237/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1238/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

…somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27, CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 and Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1997] 225 ITR 746/91 Taxman 351. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA Nos. 1006 to 1008, 1236 42 to 1238 & 5819/Del/2010 Nokia Corporation State Bank of Travancore, (supra) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. Nokia Corportion, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee on the grounds- a

ITA 1238/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1006/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1007/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1008/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5819/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Nokia Corporation Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, (Formerly Nokia Networks Oy) New Delhi C/O Tarandeep Singh, F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3748E Ita No. 1236/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1237/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1238/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

…somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27, CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 and Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1997] 225 ITR 746/91 Taxman 351. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA Nos. 1006 to 1008, 1236 42 to 1238 & 5819/Del/2010 Nokia Corporation State Bank of Travancore, (supra) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has…

M/S. Nokia Corporation (Formerly Nokia Networks Oy), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee on the grounds- a

ITA 1008/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1006/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1007/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1008/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5819/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Nokia Corporation Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, (Formerly Nokia Networks Oy) New Delhi C/O Tarandeep Singh, F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcn3748E Ita No. 1236/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1237/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 1238/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

…somebody it cannot be said that income has accrued to it or it has a right to receive the income. This proposition has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 27, CIT v. Ashokbhai Chaamanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42, CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 and Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1997] 225 ITR 746/91 Taxman 351. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA Nos. 1006 to 1008, 1236 42 to 1238 & 5819/Del/2010 Nokia Corporation State Bank of Travancore, (supra) which has been relied upon by the ld. CIT (A), has…