Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited v. CIT

416 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2019#1954 most cited

What is Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited v. CIT authority for?

Subscription amounts received from the public at large under a collective investment scheme are in the nature of capital receipts and not income, and therefore, should be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited v. CIT · 416 ITR 1 · 73 Taxmann.com 258 · capital receipt · collective investment scheme · not income · subscription amount · total income calculation · Section 11 · Section 12 · Section 12A · Section 143(3)

Also reported as

73 Taxmann.com 258

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 150surrender of incomemat creditaccumulated profitsdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 158bdsection 80icshell companysection 142(2a)section 2(22)retracted statement

Judgments citing Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited v. CIT

Citrus Check Inns Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1016/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai a/w Ms. Ritu PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen
Section 250

…, should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had floated various schemes which require subscribers to deposit certain amounts by way of subscriptions in its…

Citrus Check Inns Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1015/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai a/w Ms. Ritu PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen
Section 250

…, should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had floated various schemes which require subscribers to deposit certain amounts by way of subscriptions in its…

Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1014/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had float…

Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1013/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had float…

Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1012/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had float…

Royal Twinkle Star Club P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1429/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had float…

Royal Twinkle Star Club P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had float…

Royal Twinkle Star Club P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1427/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had float…

Royal Twinkle Star Club P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1426/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had float…

Royal Twinkle Star Club P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1425/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 147Section 194ASection 250Section 40

…should accordingly be reduced while calculating the total income of the assessee. 12. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs CIT, [2019] 416 ITR 1(SC), wherein it was held that the subscription received from the public at large under a collective investment Royal Twinkle Star Club Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 scheme is in the nature of capital receipt and not income. It is pertinent to note that in the facts of this case, the taxpayer had float…

M/S. Epp Composites Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Epp Composites Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Plot No.2646, Gidc Metoda, Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1. Rajkot. [Pan – Aabce 2957 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2018 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Rajkot For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 263Section 40Section 9

…under Section 195, as there was no income chargeable in India. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Limited (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 1 (SC) and Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC). The Ld. AR alternately contended that if it is held that there was error in the order of assessment as stated by the PCIT, the directions of the PCIT be modified to allow deduction of Rs.1,37,56,848/- in the year of payment of TDS. 6. Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1883/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1846/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1272/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1078/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1077/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

ACIT, Madurai vs. J.K.Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1076/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…

J.K.Fenner (India) Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Madurai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1063/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 32(2)

…is a substantive provision and not a procedural one. 8. It is further contended by the Revenue that the finding rendered by the Tribunal is not acceptable, as, in the case of Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited Vs. CIT [reported in (2016) 380 ITR 165], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off only against business income for a period of eight years only. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the assessee contends that the provision pertaining to the relevant assessment year should be taken into consideration and therefore, the decision of the jurisdictio…