R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

…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…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

…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…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

…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…

Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

…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…

S. Mansukhlal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4793/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. S. Mansukhlal & Co., The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Srbc & Associates Llp, Of Income Tax –14(2), V. Chartered Accountants, Earnest House, Iii Floor, 12 Th Floor, The Ruby, Nariman Point, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 021. Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahfs9459A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…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…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

…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 WD 2(4), Thane vs. Shiv Om Universal, Badlapur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

…ly, the restriction on it too has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the section and not to frustrate it.’ True, there is no equity about tax, and the two make strange bed fellows. However, as explained in R. B. Jodhamal Kuthiala vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC) that though equitable considerations are irrelevant in interpreting tax laws, the same are to be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice. This in fact stands oft- repeated by the apex court, as in CIT vs. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323 (SC), holding as: ‘Though equity and taxation are often strangers, attempts should be made that thes…

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

…immovable property, with the acquisition thus further qualifying as a transfer u/s. 2(47) of the Act. The Apex Court has clarified per its decisions in the case of CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 0625 (SC); R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthilal vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 (SC); as well as the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda [1995] 211 ITR 804 (Bom), that an owner is a person who exercises the rights of an owner in his own right, and the legal title to the property was not necessary. The question that therefore arises for consideration, and as rightly pointed by the tribunal,…

Mill Consultants & Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

…justification, based it’s case on the principle of real income, relying on the decisions in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC); CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC); R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC); CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC); and H. M. Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706 (Bom). Reliance was also placed on the Accounting Standard (AS-I) notified by the Board u/s. 145(2) of the Act, which requires adoption of the accounting policies as…

ITO 2(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Walchand People First Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

…perty u/s 22 of the Act in their assessment consistently from the assessment year 2004-05 and onwards and the same has attained finality. The assessee company relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the “owner” for the purpose of Section 22 of the Act is the persons who is the beneficial owner of the property, who earns the income from the house property in his own right. The assessee company refers to clause 2(d) of the Agreement to Lea…

Walchand People First Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

…perty u/s 22 of the Act in their assessment consistently from the assessment year 2004-05 and onwards and the same has attained finality. The assessee company relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the “owner” for the purpose of Section 22 of the Act is the persons who is the beneficial owner of the property, who earns the income from the house property in his own right. The assessee company refers to clause 2(d) of the Agreement to Lea…