R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT

82 ITR 570Supreme Court of India1971#780 most cited

What is R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT authority for?

Tax laws must be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice, even though equitable considerations are generally irrelevant in their interpretation.

131

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT · 82 ITR 570 · Supreme Court 1971 · interpretation of tax laws · equitable considerations · reasonable interpretation · consonance with justice · statutory construction · Section 10 · Section 11 · Section 143(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 10Section 10(23C)(iiiad)Section 11Section 115JAASection 115JBSection 12AASection 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

bright line testamp expenditurecomparable uncontrolled price methodsection 92(1)cost plus methodfunctional analysissection 80jjasection 80jjaasection 92c(3)section 92fmanagement feesbenchmarking analysis

Judgments citing R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT

Vivek Agarwal, Jharsuguda vs. ITO, Jharsuguda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 85/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jan 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Binod Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 194ASection 194CSection 40

…e cannot make a fortress out of the dictionary; and should remember that statutes have some purpose and object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. In the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 , this Court said that one should apply the rule of reasonable interpretation. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be trea…

DCIT vs. M/S Jupiter Capial Pvt. Ltd

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1595/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle 11(5), M/S. Jupiter Capital (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-560001. No. 54, Richmond Road, Vs. Bengaluru-560025. Pan : Aabcj 5666 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…p, major expenses are towards depreciation allowance of Rs.21,00,08,528/-. However, the AO termed the same as expenditure. In this context, it is relevant to quote certain judicial pronouncements as under: i) In the case of R.B.Jodhamal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: Page 13 of 21 "The evacuee property ordinance is an ordinance to provide for the administration of evacuee property and not 7management of evacuee property. Theexpression 'Administration', in relation to an estate, in law means management and settings of that estate. It is a power to deal with the es…

M/S. Trust Marketing, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 27(1)(a)Section 41(1)

…maintain status quo in respect of enhanced charges for at least six months. This Court took the view that though the letter had no legal binding effect but "one has to look at things from a practical point of view." (See R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC)). This Court took the view that the probability or improbability of realisation has to be considered in a realistic manner and it was held that there was no real accrual of income to the assessee in respect of the disputed enhanced charges for supply of electricity. The decision of the High Court was, accordingly, set aside. 27. Applying the…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Exemptions, Bangalore vs. M/S Centre Fpr Cellular and Molecular Platforms, Bangalore

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

ITA 271/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Centre For Cellular & Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post Bag No. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. Pan: Aadcc8572D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2

…s out of the dictionary; and should remember that statutes have some purpose and object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. In the case of R.B Jodha Mai Kuthiala v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC) , TC 40R.279, this Court said that one should apply the rule of reasonable interpretation. A proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, re…

M/S. Jammu Development Authority, Jammu ( J&K) vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 498/ASR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

For Appellant: Shri. R. K. Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

…rpose of sec 22, is person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. The requirement of registration of sale deed in the context of sec 22 is not warranted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mai Kuthalia Vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 had taken the view that irrespective of the title to the property, the person who is entitled to enjoy the income from the property was liable to income tax. The appellant has also argued some facts regarding the Delhi Development Authority, I am of the view that the case of Jammu Development Authority depends on the Act, Rules, Cabinet decisions…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. M/S. Jammu Develpment Authority, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 494/ASR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 498/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Jammu Development Authority, Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Tax, Circle-I, Complex, Jammu, J & K Jammu (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfj7335A Ita No. 494/Asr./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Jammu Development Authority, Tax, Circle-I, Vikas Bhawan, Rail Head Jammu Complex, Jammu, J & K (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp1720E Assessee By : Shri. R. K. Gupta, Ca & Shri. Vasu Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri. M. P. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :21.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.05.2013, Jammu.

For Appellant: Shri. R. K. Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Shri. M. P. Singh, CIT DR

…rpose of sec 22, is person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. The requirement of registration of sale deed in the context of sec 22 is not warranted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mai Kuthalia Vs CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 had taken the view that irrespective of the title to the property, the person who is entitled to enjoy the income from the property was liable to income tax. The appellant has also argued some facts regarding the Delhi Development Authority, I am of the view that the case of Jammu Development Authority depends on the Act, Rules, Cabinet decisions…

Sri V.N.K.Memon, Bellary District vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gulbarga

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

ITA 157/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri V.N.K. Memon, The Assistant Khb Colony, Commissioner Of Sandur, Vs. Income Tax, Bellary District. Circle – 1, Pan: Agxpm5124G Bellary. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court laid down in the cases of CIT vs. ShoorjiVallabhdas& Co. (46 ITR 144), CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. (89 ITR 266) Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (57 ITR 521), R.B.Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. CIT (82 ITR 570) and State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT (158 ITR 102). Thus, it is clear that the sale proceeds had accrued to the appellant only by virtue of the order of the Director of Department of Mines and Geology vide proceedings No.DMG/MONCOM/E-Auction/2012-13 dated 03.01.2013. The taxability or otherwise of it can be considered only during the period endin…

Shree Sanatan Ashram Charitable Trust, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (4), Amreli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.178/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shree Santan Ashram The I.T.O. बनाम/ Charitable Trust Ward-2(4) Vs. Shree Chamunda Temple Amreli Vankiya Bhod Khamba "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajts 7402 B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : None (Written Submission) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…on. Gujarat High Court. 1.3. The Hon. Calcutta High Court in the above decisions has followed the decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors 224 ITR 677 (SC) & Alom Extrusions 319 ITR " 306 (SC) and in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala 82 ITR 570 (SC) where it is held that a provision which was inserted the remedy to make a provision workable requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well. 6.3. Therefore in view of the amendments as per Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 which is to be treated as retrospective in view of decisio…

ITO, Ward - 13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ashamangal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 28

…ully following the decisions rendered by the various judicial forums that were relied on by the assessee such as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodhamal Kuthalia 3 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Ashamangal Portfolio Pvt. Limited vs. CIT 82 ITR 570, wherein it was held that “the owner must be the person, who can exercise, the rights of owner not on behalf of the owners but in his own right”. This Tribunals Bombay Bench as well as Hyderabad Bench reported in 110 ITD 331 and 337 and 99 ITD 18 is of the same view to the effect that “if the assessee is not the owner of the building, income from…

M/S Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6767/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not applicable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4. In ignoring the fact that the appellant company had acquired an overriding title over the income from leasing of retail spaces of AHRL under an agreement in lieu of the i…

M/S Ambience Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6766/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not applicable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4. In ignoring the fact that the appellant company had acquired an overriding title over the income from leasing of retail spaces of AHRL under an agreement in lieu of the i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6414/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not applicable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4. In ignoring the fact that the appellant company had acquired an overriding title over the income from leasing of retail spaces of AHRL under an agreement in lieu of the i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly

ITA 6413/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10 Ay: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Ambience Developers & Central Circle 20 Infrastructure P Ltd. New Delhi L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Developers & Vs. Dcit Infrastructure P Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaeca6894P Ay: 2010-11 Ambience Hotels & Vs. Dcit Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 16 L-4, Green Park Extn. New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aadca7906K (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, D.R. Assessee By : : Sh. T.R. Talwar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /02/2019

For Appellant: : Sh. T.R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Section 60

…same income in the hands of AHRL. 2. In not accepting the concept of beneficial ownership of the property in possession and enjoyment as held by the apex court in CIT V. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Jodha Mai Kuthiala (RB) V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). 3. In not recognizing that section 60 is not applicable, if the income is derived not from transfer of assets but by reason of the right to manage and carry on business. 4. In ignoring the fact that the appellant company had acquired an overriding title over the income from leasing of retail spaces of AHRL under an agreement in lieu of the i…

M/S. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Gautam Buidh Nagar vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Lg L.G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The A.C.I.T Vs. No.51, Udyog Vihar, Circle -3 Plot Surajpur Kasna Road Noida Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Pan No. Aaacl 1745Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] LG L.G Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The A.C.I.T Vs. No.51, Udyog Vihar, Circle -3 Plot Surajpur Kasna Road Noida Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, PAN No. AAACL 1745Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. Ramit katiyal, Advocate Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate Respondent by Sh. H. K. Chaudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 05.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:…

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6253/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2008-09] L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Asstt. C.I.T A-27, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Circle - 3 Estate, Mathura Road Noida [U.P] New Delhi Pan : Aaacl 1745 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 80J

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-2’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2008-09] L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Asstt. C.I.T A-27, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Circle - 3 Estate, Mathura Road Noida [U.P] New Delhi PAN : AAACL 1745 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 13.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 14.01.2019 Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv Shri Ramit Katyal, Adv Revenue by : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR Smt. Namita Ramdev, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT…

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Merit Magnum Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection stands

ITA 6656/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit-27(2), M/S. Merit Magnum Construction Room No. 420, 4Th Floor, Samruddhi, Office Floor, Plot No. 157, 18Th Road, Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly. Station Vs. Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Nr. Ambedkar Garden, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aacfv 9391 F (Revenue) (Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…der the head current assets, loans and advances. There is no real accrual of income to the assessee. In support of their contention, the decision in the case of CIT v/s. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266(SC) and R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala Vs/. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570(SC) have also been referred to. h) Decision in the case of CIT v/s. Usha International Ltd. [348 ITR 485] regarding reopening of the assessment prompted by a mere change of opinion has been referred to and it has been contended that since original assessment order was passed after accepting the return which contained existence of security deposits…

ITO, Ward - 13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ashamangal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2559/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Ashamangal Portfolio Ward-13(1), 9Th Pvt. Ltd., 103/24/1, Floor, 110, Foreshore Road, Shibpur, Shantiplly, Aayakar Howrh-711102 Bhawan (Poorva), [Pan No.Aabca 3340 B] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Shri K. Mondal, Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri R. Jain, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-10-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 10-10-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18.10.2017, Passed In Case No.44/Cit(A)-5/Dcit.Cir-13(1)/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive The Assessing Officer’S Action Treating The Taxpayer’S Income Of ₹239,98,414/- From Its Warehousing Facilities Under The Head House Property Income Than From Business In Lower Appellate Proceedings. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Under Challenge Reads As Under:-

Section 143(3)

…s and mentioned in the orders passed by them nowhere it was pointed out that how the assessee became the property owner or lessee thereof." The ITAT, Kolkata has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RB Jodhamal Kuthalia Vs. CIT 82 ITR 570 wherein it was held that "the owner must be the person, who can exercise, the rights of owner not on behalf of the ownership but in his own right." This Tribunals Bombay Bench as well as Hyderabad Bench reported in 110 ITD 331 and 337 and 99 ITD 18 is of the same view to the effect that "if the assessee is not the owner of the building, income fro…

ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Karan R. Shah, Mumbai

ITA 3652/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: Shri Syed Nadeem
Section 133(6)Section 40A(2)(b)

…n of a statute the provisions of section 132(4A) also have to be applied and interpreted in very reasonable manner and in consonance with justice. We say so on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 at p. 575." 36. Further in the case of Pioneer Publicity Corporation & Others Vs. DCIT reported in 67 TTJ 471, (Copy enclosed at pages 373-437 of Paper Book) the Delhi Tribunal held that “no addition could be made simply on the basis of a noting on a visiting card found during search directing certain payment to bearer of card when there was noth…

ITO, Ward - 13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ashamangal Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2371/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Smt. M. Ghosh, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jain, FCA , ld.AR
Section 22

…s and mentioned in the orders passed by them nowhere it was pointed out that how the assesse became the property owner or lessee thereof.” The ITAT, Kolkata has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RB Jodhamal Kuthalia Vs. CIT 82 ITR 570 wherein it was held that “the owner must be the person, who can exercise, the rights of owner not on behalf of the ownership but in his own right.” This Tribunals Bombay Bench as well as Hyderabad Bench reported in 110 ITD 331 and 337 and 99 ITD 18 is of the same view to the effect that “if the assesse is not the owner of the building, income from…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

WTA/1/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…the facts and circumstances of the case, belonged to the assessee any more. This Court had occasion to discuss section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the meaning of the expression “owner” in the case of R.B.Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC). There it was held that for the purpose of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the owner must be the person who can exercise the rights of the owner, not on behalf of the owner but his own right. An assessee whose property remained vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property was not the owner of the property. This again, a…