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

Khambhampati Jayalakshmi, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1587/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR 42]; iv. Assam Roller Flour Mills Vs. CIT [227 ITR 43]; for various concepts. Lastly, Ld. Counsel relied on the recent amendment to the Finance Act, 2017 by which new provision of Sub-Section 5A u/s. 45 has been introduced to support the concept of real income. 5.2. With reference to cost of purchase which is also added as ‘unexplained investment’,…

Rama Rao Gottumukkala, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1233/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…ised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR 42]; iv. Assam Roller Flour Mills Vs. CIT [227 ITR 43]; for various concepts. Lastly, Ld. Counsel relied on the recent amendment to the Finance Act, 2017 by which new provision of Sub-Section 5A u/s. 45 has been introduced to support the concept of real income. 11. Ld.DR, however, while accepting that the facts as stated by the Ld. Counsel were plac…

Kondal Rao Kurmyagari, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1232/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…ised is at best a hypothetical income which cannot be brought to tax. He also relied on the following judgments: i. Amiantit International Holding Ltd., AAR [322 ITR 678]; ii. State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [158 ITR 102]; iii. CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [56 ITR 42]; iv. Assam Roller Flour Mills Vs. CIT [227 ITR 43]; for various concepts. Lastly, Ld. Counsel relied on the recent amendment to the Finance Act, 2017 by which new provision of Sub-Section 5A u/s. 45 has been introduced to support the concept of real income. 11. Ld.DR, however, while accepting that the facts as stated by the Ld. Counsel were plac…

ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S White Cliff Properties (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1511/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 251

…ount ought to be included in the profits of the year 1950-51 relevant to the assessment year 1951-52, and that it could not be related back to the earlier year during which the assessee actually supplied bread to the hospital.” In CIT vs. Ashobhai Chimanbhai, 56 ITR 42, Hon’ble Supreme Court held (as per head-note) “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. 7 White Cliff Properties (P) Ltd I.T.A. No. 1511/KOL/2015 Ass…

Ashoo Decor India, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1054/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiashoo Décor India, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 1, Streel No. 1, Range-33, New Delhi Anad Parbat Indl. Area, Delhi Pan:Aaifa8801D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SK Jain, DR
Section 23Section 23(4)Section 24

…rue when the assessee acquire a right to receive that income. Income is said to be received when it reaches the assessee, when the right to received the income becomes......... In the assessee, it is said to accrue or arise (ClT-Vs Ashokbhai Chimmanbhai (1965)56 ITR 42 (SC) . In view of the above the assessee had not paid any excess interest on capital to its partners and nothing should be disallowed during the year under reference." 9.2 The Assessing Officer considered the above submissions of the appellant as entirely bereft of merit in view of the above cited decision of Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad. He therefore,…

Ravi Poddar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 130/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena (JCIT)
Section 148Section 2

…ion to word “accruing or arising”. In the case of Keyman Insurance Policies, no income shall accrue or arise before the date of actual payment/receipt. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ashok Bhai Chiman Bhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court analyzing the provisions of Sec 5 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has observed as under: “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.” 4.9 Reliance was also placed on the following decisions to explain the m…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

…as not on the basis of the right accrued in the earlier year. Such amounts are in law received by the assessee only in the year when they are paid.’ Again, explaining the concept of accrual, it was held by the said Court in CIT vs. Ashokbhai Chamanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC), as under: ‘The two “accrue” and “arise” are used to contra-distinguish 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. Income becomes taxable on the footing of accrual only after the right of the taxpayer to the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Sasi Educational Institutes

Appeal is dismissed as above

ITTA/125/2010HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Appellant: - The Commissioner Of Income Tax And AnotherFor Respondent: - M/S Eldeco Construction Pvt. Ltd
Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…and also considering the ratio of decisions Laxmipat Singhania Vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC), CIT Vs. K.R.M.T. Thiangaraia Chetty & Co. (1953) 24 ITR 525 (SC), Morvl Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 833 (SC), CIT Vs. Ashok Bhai Chiman Bhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC) this income should have been assessed on accrual basis ?" Insofar as the question no.1 is concerned, it has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the department in Income Tax Appeal No.99 of 2010 in the matter of sister concern by a judgement and order dated 08.01.2018. The Court held that this question has already been decided w…

Ajay Guliya

ITA/423/2012HC Delhi16 Jul 2012
Section 45Section 45(1)

…ibunal, the assessee relied upon the decision of Advance Ruling Authority in Anurag Jain (2005 (227) ITR 1 (AAR)) and the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation (1993) 202 ITR 492 (Cal); CIT Vs. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC). ITAT 2012:DHC:4335-DB ITA 423 of 2012 Page 3 of 10 considered and discussed each one of these decisions in the impugned order in paras 6.6 and 6.9. It held in favour of the revenue reasoning as follows : “6.1 We may at the first i…