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.

How many judgments cite R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT?

131 judgments on BharatTax cite R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (82 ITR 570), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 10, Section 10(23C)(iiiad), Section 11, Section 115JAA, Section 115JB.

R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (82 ITR 570)

Income Tax Officer 10(3) -1, Mumbai vs. Alfreight International Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5578/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 5578/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-10(3)-1, M/S Alfreight International Room No. 456, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. 504, Mayuresh बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cosmos, Plot No. 37, Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Sector-11, Cbd Belapur Navi Mumbai-400 61 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5383K (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50

…roperty, to the extent the chargeability of tax under the Income tax Act, 1961, is concerned. We find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- (i). R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala Vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC). (ii). CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. Etc.. (1997) 226 ITR 0625 (SC) P a g e | 18 ITA No. 5578/Mum/2013 AY: 2009-10 ITO Vs. M/s Alfreight International The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments had concluded that „Owner' for the purposes of Sec. 22 is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right, and…

Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T Range - 50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 724/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…nt to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act held as below:— "The supreme court in the case of Allied Motors P ltd and also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well". CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 (SC) - Five Judges decision of the Sup…

Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T Range - 50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 723/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…nt to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act held as below:— "The supreme court in the case of Allied Motors P ltd and also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well". CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466/227 Taxman 121/49 taxmann.com 249 (SC) - Five Judges decision of the Sup…

ACIT, Balasore vs. M/S. Almighty Mining Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bhadrak

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 359/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh,CITDR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201(1)Section 40

…he Supreme Court, as has been recorded by the learned Tribunal, in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. and also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd., has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the app…

M/S. Mahasakti Foundation, Kalahandi vs. ACIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 134/CTK/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 40

…t to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act held as below:- “The supreme court in the case of Allied Motors P ltd and also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Asse ssment Years :2 00 7-0 8 to 2 012 -13 Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well”. CIT vs Vatika Township P Ltd reported in (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) – Five Judges…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…he Supreme Court, as has been recorded by the learned Tribunal, in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. And also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd., has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation M/s Crescent Construction Co. so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide othe…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…he Supreme Court, as has been recorded by the learned Tribunal, in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd. And also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd., has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation M/s Crescent Construction Co. so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide othe…

ITO, Ward - 1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gkw Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 459/KOL/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 459/Kol/2012 Assessment Years: 1996-97

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)

…retrospective application. It was held as below:- "The supreme court in the case of Allied Motors P ltd and also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd has already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application. Again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well". 5.5.4. In our considered opinion, the amendment brought in section 72A(2)(ii) of the Act had shifted from stringent measure…

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deloitte & Touche Consulting Inida P. Ltdervice India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4136/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K.Pradhan

Section 260Section 28

…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. Commissioner of Income Tax, [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 Deloitte Corporate Finance Service India Pvt. Ltd., enhanced charges for supply of electricity. The decision of the High…

Idcit 23(3), Mumbai vs. Sharad V Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6614/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 40Section 56(1)(vi)Section 69

…llowing the decision of Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs Virgin Creation in ITA No. 302 of 2011 dated 23.11.2011 held that when the deducted tax was paid before the due date of return no disallowance is warranted. The Hon’ble Apex Court in R.B. Jodhamal Kuthiala 82 ITR 570 held that the provision which has the remedy to make the provision workable, require to be treated with retrospective 4 ITA No. 6614/M/2014 Sharad V. Shah operation so that reasonable restriction can be given to the section as well. Thus, we may conclude that ground No. 1&2 of appeal raised by Revenue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by…

Harbhajan Singh, Burdwan vs. I.T.O WD - 1(4), Kolkata, Asansol

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1076/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 269S

…the Supreme Court, as has been recorded by the learned Tribunal, in the case of Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd., and also in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd., as already decided that the aforesaid provision has retrospective application again, in the case reported in 82 ITR 570, the Supreme Court held that the provision, which has inserted the remedy to make the provision workable, requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section a well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the app…