Raj Kumar Hukam Chandji v. CIT

78 ITR 33Reported decision1970#16113 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143 Section 250 Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Judgments citing Raj Kumar Hukam Chandji v. CIT

B.K. Sales Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 36(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. B.K. Sales Corporation, Vs. Acit, Circle 36 (1), D-1, Gf 5, Virat Bhawan, New Delhi. Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Aaafb4846K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Order : 26.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-12, New Delhi Dated 06.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Revenue : Disallowance Of Service Charges/Commission Paid To Six Hufs Rs.3196047 – A. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Ignored I. The Basic Fact Of The Assessee Being A Service Recipient Getting Such Services From Various Unrelated Entities.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…explaining details of work done/quantity supplied. Assessee further submitted that the HUFs are not prohibited under law to render services. In this regard various case laws were referred by the assessee as under :- (i) Raj Kumar Hukam Chandji vs. CIT (1970) 78 ITR 33, 43 (SC); (ii) S.S. Khubchand Motilal Jain – (1975) 100 ITR 206 (M.P.); and (iii) Tolaram Jalan vs. ITO – (1983) 6 ITD 261 (ITAT Cal.). 7. Ld. CIT (A) in his order observed that payment to HUF was not possible is not tenable. Ld. CIT (A) asked the assessee to provide description of services performed by agents to whom the payments were made; whethe…

Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela vs. DCIT, Rorukela Circle, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 393/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

…irm and salary or commission is paid to such partner, the issue arises whether such salary or commission should be assessed in the hands of HUF or as personal income of the karta. The test laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kumar Singh Hukam Singhji 78 ITR 33 (1970) (SC) is whether such payment has been made because of investment in the firm or P a g e 17 | 68 Smt. Indrani Patnaik A-6, Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela as a compensation for the services rendered. In case of the former, it will be assessed as income of the HUF while in case of the latter, it will be assessed as the personal i…

ACIT, Rorukela Circle, Rourkela vs. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

In the result, appeals of the revenue for assessment years 2012-13 &

ITA 389/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.C.Bhadra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam,, CIT DR

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Unisys Software and Holding Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No. 658/KOL/2018 A.Y. 2013-2014 M/s. Unisys Software And Holding Industries Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ) and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 658/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,.............................................Appellant Circle-8(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 -Vs.- M/s. Unisys Software And Holding Industries Limited,...............Respondent 75, Park Street, Basement, Kolkata-700 016 [PAN: AABCC 1191 Q] A…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S Turner Morrison Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 297/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…I.T.A. No 297/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 & I.T.A. No. 161/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 1 of 23 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 297/KOL/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,..............................................Appellant Circle-6, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Room No.17, 6th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 -Vs.- M/s. Turner Morrison Limited,........................................................Responde…

DCIT, Rourkela vs. Indrani Patnaik, Rourkela

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 142/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri D.Pati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 194H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-2011 DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Vs. Smt. Indrani Patnaik,A-6, Rourkela Commercial Estate, Civil Township, Rourkela. PAN/GIR No.ACCPP 6164 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D.Pati, AR Revenue by : Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29/08/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31/08/ 2017 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 28.1.2015 for the assessme…