Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

57 ITR 532Supreme Court of India1965#710 most cited

What is Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT authority for?

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

142

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT · 57 ITR 532 · not all receipts income · income chargeable to tax · AO cannot reject explanation arbitrarily · probabilities and possibilities · disbelieved not disproved · burden of proof on AO · Section 5 · Section 68 · Section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 5(2)Section 9Section 147Section 6Section 143(3)Section 5Section 68Section 149(1)(c)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 5(2)business connectionsection 149(1)creditworthiness of the creditorliable to taxtangible materialsection 34borrowed satisfactionsatisfaction noteassessee in default

Judgments citing Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

Shri Zahid Hassan, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3873/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘Smc-3’, New Delhi Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddya.Y 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramanjaneyulu, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69

…ssment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and all proceedings pursuant thereto, culminating in the impugned order, are cancelled. Ground No.2 is, accordingly, accepted." C. Apex Court judgment in the case of Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT reported in 57 ITR 532 has held as under:- "By sections 3 and 4 the Act imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the taxing…

Asst CIT Cir 11(5) vs. Jsw Steel Ltd

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 930/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ncome tax and the question whether the particular receipt is income or not will depend upon the nature of the receipt as well as the scope and effect of the relevant taxing provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT (57 ITR 532) has observed as under: “By sections 3 and 4, the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove…

Jsw Steel Ltd vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(5)

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal & Hirali Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ncome tax and the question whether the particular receipt is income or not will depend upon the nature of the receipt as well as the scope and effect of the relevant taxing provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT (57 ITR 532) has observed as under: “By sections 3 and 4, the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Sicom Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1685/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…s of the appellant. I agree with the A.R's that onus of establishing that a receipt is chargeable to tax is on the A.O. Reference may be made to the following observations of Supreme Court :- a) Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. Commissioner of Income- tax (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) From the Head notes: "By section 3 and 4, the Indian Income-tax. Act, 1922, imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to pro…

Sicom Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1522/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Sicom Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai-20 Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit – 3(3) – Mumbai- Vs. M/S. Sicom Ltd., Nirmal, 1St Floor, Nariman Point, 20 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5524J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 41

…s of the appellant. I agree with the A.R's that onus of establishing that a receipt is chargeable to tax is on the A.O. Reference may be made to the following observations of Supreme Court :- a) Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. Commissioner of Income- tax (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) From the Head notes: "By section 3 and 4, the Indian Income-tax. Act, 1922, imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to pro…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…to Shri Mehta, the Chairman of the ITA 800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 50 Settlement Commission, in his dissenting opinion, has correctly applied the law. Shri Mehta has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 ; Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112; and CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 . Shri J. Ramamurthy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue, has supported the majority view and has submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the receipts claimed to be winnings from races were income fr…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

ITA 6314/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…to Shri Mehta, the Chairman of the ITA 800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 50 Settlement Commission, in his dissenting opinion, has correctly applied the law. Shri Mehta has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 ; Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112; and CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 . Shri J. Ramamurthy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue, has supported the majority view and has submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the receipts claimed to be winnings from races were income fr…

Munni Devi, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 3534/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08 Munni Devi Vs. Ito, Ward-2 W/O Sh. Mohar Singh, Rewari Vill. & Po Asia-Ki-Gorawas, Rewari (Pan: Bivpd3594G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…hed the copies of the said decisions with his Paper Book. - Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali reported in 68 STO 197 (Del) - Sh. Amrik Singh vs. ITO reported in 159 ITD 329 (Asr) - Apex Court decision in the case of Parimisetti Sehtharamamma vs. CIT reported in 57 ITR 532. - Praveen Kumar Jain vs. ITO in ITA No. 1331/D/2015 for the AY 2006-07 dated 22.1.2015. - Saraf Gramodyog Sansthan vs. ITO reported in 108 ITD 115 (Agra). 6 In view of the above, he requested that by following the aforesaid precedents the reassessment proceedings of the AO may be quashed by accepting the Appeal filed by the Assessee. 10. On t…

K.B. J Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6365/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 131Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ए’,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘A’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, KBJ Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AACCK8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 07/09/…

Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8337/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

For Appellant: Shri Kailash GaikwadFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Shah
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ssable nature. In Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), the hon’ble apex court, after referring to its earlier decisions in Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. 5 Dy. CIT vs. Saraswati Developers CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC); and CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), held as under: ‘In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IX vs. Raman Khera

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms but in the facts and

ITA/476/2014HC Delhi03 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 260A

…Page 19 of 28 offered to tax, which has been accepted by the Revenue, an exception cannot be made for the AY in question by treating the entire amount received to tax. Reliance is placed on the decision in Parimisethi Seetharamamma v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) in support of the proposition that all incomes are receipts but all receipts are not income. It is only receipts which bear the characteristic of income that can be taxed. (iv) Relying on the decision in E.D. Sasoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) it was submitted that in the AY in question in relation to bringing th…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IX vs. Raman Khera

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms but in the facts and

ITA/326/2015HC Delhi03 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 260A

…Page 19 of 28 offered to tax, which has been accepted by the Revenue, an exception cannot be made for the AY in question by treating the entire amount received to tax. Reliance is placed on the decision in Parimisethi Seetharamamma v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) in support of the proposition that all incomes are receipts but all receipts are not income. It is only receipts which bear the characteristic of income that can be taxed. (iv) Relying on the decision in E.D. Sasoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) it was submitted that in the AY in question in relation to bringing th…

Commissioner of Income Tax- 14 vs. Aman Khera

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms but in the facts and

ITA/21/2015HC Delhi03 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 260A

…Page 19 of 28 offered to tax, which has been accepted by the Revenue, an exception cannot be made for the AY in question by treating the entire amount received to tax. Reliance is placed on the decision in Parimisethi Seetharamamma v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) in support of the proposition that all incomes are receipts but all receipts are not income. It is only receipts which bear the characteristic of income that can be taxed. (iv) Relying on the decision in E.D. Sasoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) it was submitted that in the AY in question in relation to bringing th…

K.V. Subramanyam vs. ITO

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri K.V.Subramaniam, No.15, Sai Smaran Apartments, 17Th Cross, 35 A Main, Jp Nagar Vi Phase, Bangalore-560078. … Appellant Pa No.Aqgps 0686 J Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 15(2) Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri SunilKumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80C(5)(iii)

…t case, the assessee had miserably failed to explain source of cash deposits with plausible evidence. In the circumstances, we hold that the AO is justified in making an addition of Rs.27,18,000/-. Reliance on the decision in Parimisethi Seetharamamma Vs.CIT (57 ITR 532) and 234 ITR 801 are not applicable in the facts of the present case as those decisions were rendered in the context of receipt of amount by an assessee whereas in the present case, it relates to unexplained cash deposits and the primary onus lies on the assessee to explain with plausible Page 5 of 5 evidence the source of such deposits. Failure t…

Gyanendra Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/138/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…ITA Nos. 136 & 138/2004 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5. + ITA 136/2004 GIRISH BANSAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sabharwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Chopra and Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rahul…

Girish Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/136/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…ITA Nos. 136 & 138/2004 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5. + ITA 136/2004 GIRISH BANSAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sabharwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Chopra and Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rahul…

Addl CIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Indervadan H Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is allowed in part

ITA 103/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnoo
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…ase of CIT vs. President Industries reported in (2002) 124 Taxman 654(Guj) (ii) Eland International (P)Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA NO.3423/0e1/2007 , ITAT Delhi 'C' Bench. (iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT reported in 57 ITR 532(SC) (iv) Hon'be Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Chari N Chari reported in 57 ITR 400(SC) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Leader Valves P Ltd (vi) Balaji Textile Industries (P) vs Third income Tax Officer (vii) Diagnostics vis. CIT reported in 334 ITR 111 Culcutta (viii) Gujarat Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs CIT reported in 316 ITR 2…

ITO, Ward 2(2), Paschim Medinipur vs. M/S. Krishna Trading, Paschim Medinipur

In the result, Revenue appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2019/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2003-04

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…It is settled that the burden of showing that a receipt or item is income of the assessee is son the Assessing Officer. Reliance is placed ITA No.2019/Kol/2007 A.Y.2003-04 ITO Wd-2(2) Mid v. M/s Krishna Trading Page 8 on Parimisetti Seetharamannmani vs. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC). The Assessing Officer has failed to establish that the impugned additions made listed earlier are income of the assessee. It is seen that the addition made of Rs.14,63,312/- on account of various debits (details given on page 12 of the assessment order). Shiva Cement Ltd furnished copies of debit notes and transfer vouchers which are not fou…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-XI vs. Indian National Congress/All India Congress Committee

ITA/145/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 139Section 13A

…s payment is, in simple English, a donation”. 62. Mr. Aggarwal also referred to the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harprasad & Company Private Limited (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) and Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) to urge that all receipts were not income and the burden was on the Revenue to establish that a voluntary contribution was income within the meaning of the Act. He submitted that the only test was “material return” which in the present case was absent. Mr Aggarwal submitted that in a voluntary contribution, the voluntariness of the dono…

Indian National Cong. (I) Aicc vs. C.I.T.- XI

ITA/180/2001HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 139Section 13A

…s payment is, in simple English, a donation”. 62. Mr. Aggarwal also referred to the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harprasad & Company Private Limited (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) and Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC) to urge that all receipts were not income and the burden was on the Revenue to establish that a voluntary contribution was income within the meaning of the Act. He submitted that the only test was “material return” which in the present case was absent. Mr Aggarwal submitted that in a voluntary contribution, the voluntariness of the dono…