Priyadarsan v. JCIT

73 TTJ 738Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#14396 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 195(1)Section 244ASection 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 234DSection 194J

Issues it is cited on

section 195(1)section 234dright to receivesection 194jsection 244asection 9(1)(vii)section 40(a)(i)fees for technical servicesinterest under section 234btax treatysection 195section 9(1)

Judgments citing Priyadarsan v. JCIT

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-16(2), Mumbai

ITA 292/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

…method of accounting consistently for several years. The assessee placed reliance on the judgment of P& H High Court in the case of CIT vs Punjab Tractors Co-operative Multi-purpose Society Ltd, 234 ITR 10, decision of this Tribunal in S. Priyadarsan vs JCIT, 73 TTJ 738 and on identical issue in the case of associated concern of the assessee viz. A.F. Ferguson & Co., in I.T.A. No.7792/Mum/2004 dated 30.1.2008, ITAT Mumbai. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the submission of the assessee that the advance cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee unless the services are render…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 291/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

…method of accounting consistently for several years. The assessee placed reliance on the judgment of P& H High Court in the case of CIT vs Punjab Tractors Co-operative Multi-purpose Society Ltd, 234 ITR 10, decision of this Tribunal in S. Priyadarsan vs JCIT, 73 TTJ 738 and on identical issue in the case of associated concern of the assessee viz. A.F. Ferguson & Co., in I.T.A. No.7792/Mum/2004 dated 30.1.2008, ITAT Mumbai. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the submission of the assessee that the advance cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee unless the services are render…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP, Mumbai vs. Joint Range- 11(2), Mumbai

ITA 289/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

…method of accounting consistently for several years. The assessee placed reliance on the judgment of P& H High Court in the case of CIT vs Punjab Tractors Co-operative Multi-purpose Society Ltd, 234 ITR 10, decision of this Tribunal in S. Priyadarsan vs JCIT, 73 TTJ 738 and on identical issue in the case of associated concern of the assessee viz. A.F. Ferguson & Co., in I.T.A. No.7792/Mum/2004 dated 30.1.2008, ITAT Mumbai. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the submission of the assessee that the advance cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee unless the services are render…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ethod of accounting consistently for several years. The assessee placed reliance on the judgment of P& H High Court in the case of CIT vs Punjab Tractors Co- operative Multi-purpose Society Ltd, 234 ITR 10, decision of this Tribunal in S. Priyadarsan vs JCIT, 73 TTJ 738 and on identical issue in the case of associated concern of the assesseeviz. A.F. Ferguson & Co., in I.T.A.No.7792/Mum/2004 dated 30.1.2008, ITAT Mumbai. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the submission of the assessee that the advance cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee unless the services are rendered…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ethod of accounting consistently for several years. The assessee placed reliance on the judgment of P& H High Court in the case of CIT vs Punjab Tractors Co- operative Multi-purpose Society Ltd, 234 ITR 10, decision of this Tribunal in S. Priyadarsan vs JCIT, 73 TTJ 738 and on identical issue in the case of associated concern of the assesseeviz. A.F. Ferguson & Co., in I.T.A.No.7792/Mum/2004 dated 30.1.2008, ITAT Mumbai. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the submission of the assessee that the advance cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee unless the services are rendered…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ethod of accounting consistently for several years. The assessee placed reliance on the judgment of P& H High Court in the case of CIT vs Punjab Tractors Co- operative Multi-purpose Society Ltd, 234 ITR 10, decision of this Tribunal in S. Priyadarsan vs JCIT, 73 TTJ 738 and on identical issue in the case of associated concern of the assesseeviz. A.F. Ferguson & Co., in I.T.A.No.7792/Mum/2004 dated 30.1.2008, ITAT Mumbai. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the submission of the assessee that the advance cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee unless the services are rendered…

Ananth G Mahadevan, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 141/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Indira G. AnandFor Respondent: Ms. Vinita Menon
Section 143(3)

…the AO. 4. It was also argued by ld. AR that amount so received was purely in the nature of advance and the assessee has to render service in respect of amount so received. She relied on the decision in the case of Nana G. Patekar 27 SOT 8 and S. Priyadarsan,73 TTJ 738 in support of the proposition that advance received by the assessee, a film director from two producers for directing their prospective films, could not be treated as income as no work was done by the assessee for these two producers and the assessee has shown amount in list of sundry creditors in the balance sheet. 5. Our attention was also invit…

Priyadarsan v. JCIT (73 TTJ 738) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax