Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria v. CIT

1 ITR 135Supreme Court of India1933#6481 most cited

What is Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria v. CIT authority for?

Income is diverted by overriding title before it reaches the assessee if the nature of the obligation means the amount cannot be considered part of the assessee's income.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria v. CIT · diversion of income · overriding title · assessee's income · nature of obligation · Privy Council judgment · Supreme Court judgment

Judgments citing Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria v. CIT

Loramitra Rath, Kairapari Kotsahi, Tangi vs. DCIT (Circle-1(1), Cuttack

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…atsingka v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 323 (SC) 24 24 Nariman B. Bharucha’s case (1981) 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 25 9 P. C. Mullick vs. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 206 (SC) 26 13 Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) 27 2 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria vs. CIT [1933] 1 ITR 135 (SC) 28 13 29 Rajkot District Gopalak Co-op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd. vs. CIT 204 5 ITR 590 (Gujarat) RSM & Co. Vs. Addl. CIT (2010) 125 ITD 243 (Mum.) 30 24 Shroff Eye Centre vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) 31 20 Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT 216 ITR 291(Bom.) 32 5 33 State Bank of Travancore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 158 ITR 2 102 (SC) T.S.…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 146 / 2024HC Delhi29 Feb 2024
Section 14ASection 44

…me. The matter in the present case would have been different, if such an overriding charge had existed either upon the property or upon its income, which is not the case. In our opinion, the case falls outside the rule in Bejoy Singh Dudhuria case [(1933) 1 ITR 135] and rather falls within the rule stated by the Judicial Committee in P.C. Mullick case [(1938) 6 ITR 206] .” 7. Proceeding then to the question of deletion of the additions made on account of disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Cour…

Perfect Thread Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Department by Shri Mehul Jain

…ecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SitaladasTirathdas (41 ITR 367) by referring to the judgement of Honourable Privy Council in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. CIT 9 TA.No. 4903/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. Perfect Thread Mills Limited (1 ITR 135) and P.C.Mullick (6 ITR 206) submitted that the income of the assessee is nothing but the diversion of income by overriding title. He submitted that assessee has transferred the property in favour of the secured creditors and assessee has not received any consideration and only authorised bank i.e. Canara Bank has received the same and distributed…

Church of Christ, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions-4, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1688/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Church Of Christ, Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad. (Exemptions)-4, Pan: Aabtc 3506 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By Sri D.J. Prabhakar Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2012-13 Church of Christ, VS. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad. (Exemptions)-4, PAN: AABTC 3506 E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue by Sri D.J. Prabhakar Anand, DR Date of hearing: 16/06/2021 Date of pronouncement: 26/07/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0018/ITO(Exe)-4/2015-16,…

Agra Development Authority, Agra vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 124Section 142Section 153

…carried out as per the pleasure and choice of a committee appointed by State Govt. It is thus a case of diversion of income by overriding title. ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 26 RAJA BEJOY SINGH DUDURIA VS. CIT(1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) Prince Khanderao Gaekwar vs. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 294 (Bom) Seth Motilal Manekchand vs. CIT (1957) 31 ITR 735 (BOM) CIT VS. TOLLYGUNGE CLUB LTD.(1977)107 ITR 776(SC) JIT & PAL X-RAYS (P) LTD. S. CIT (2004) 134 TAXMAN 62 (ALL) (3) Most of the functions carried out by the appellant authority are functions of state and the income accruing in perfor…

The Jute Corporation of India Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2428/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 43B

…id decision is found to be not applicable to the appellant's case. In the case of CIT -vs.- Sunil J. Kinariwala (2003) 259 ITR 10, the Apex Court, after referring to the decisions of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria -vs. - CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) and P.C. Mullick -vs.- CIT (1938) 6 ITR 206 (PC); of the Apex Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra), K.A. Ramachar -vs.- CIT (1961) 42 ITR 25 (SC); Motilal Chhadami Laljain (supra); CIT -Vs.- Baagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC) and Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 6.2-ITR 323 (SC), has held that if a third person becomes en…

ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…d decision is found to be not applicable to the appellant's case. In the case of CIT –vs.- Sunil J. Kinariwala (2003) 259 ITR 10, the Apex Court, after referring to the decisions of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria –vs. – CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) and P.C. Mullick –vs.- CIT (1938) 6 ITR 206 (PC); of the Apex Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra), K.A. Ramachar –vs.- CIT (1961) 42 ITR 25 (SC); Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain (supra); CIT –Vs.- Baagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC) and Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 6.2-iTR 323 (SC), has held that if a third person becomes e…

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…d decision is found to be not applicable to the appellant's case. In the case of CIT –vs.- Sunil J. Kinariwala (2003) 259 ITR 10, the Apex Court, after referring to the decisions of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria –vs. – CIT (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) and P.C. Mullick –vs.- CIT (1938) 6 ITR 206 (PC); of the Apex Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra), K.A. Ramachar –vs.- CIT (1961) 42 ITR 25 (SC); Motilal Chhadami Lal Jain (supra); CIT –Vs.- Baagyalakshmi & Co. (1965) 55 ITR 660 (SC) and Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT (1966) 6.2-iTR 323 (SC), has held that if a third person becomes e…

Perfect Thread Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4964/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu Vice Presedent,(As) Shri D. Karunakar Rao & Shri Amit Shukla, Sh. Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarperfect Thread Mills Ltd Vs Dcit, 8(2), Mumbai 201, Millenium Plaza Behind Sakinaka Telephone Exchange, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72 Pan: Aaacp6449E Appellant Respondednt

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 255(4)Section 48

…"3.9. The principles of diversion of income by overriding title were explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) by referring to the judgment of Hon 'ble Privy Council in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria vs. CIT (1 ITR 135) and P.C. Mullick (6 ITR 206) with the following observations. "In our opinion, the true test is whether the amount sought to be deducted, in truth, never reached the assessee as his income. Obligations, no doubt, there are in every case, but it is the nature of the obligation which is the decisive fact. There is a difference between an amount whic…

Integral Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1075/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (ACIT)
Section 145Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

…income is not applied but diverted by an overriding title from the assessee, which he would otherwise have received. Such diverted income cannot be considered the income of the assessee at all. Reference may be made to Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. CIT [1933] 1 ITR 135 (PC) where the assessee has succeeded to the family ancestral estate on the demise of his father. Subsequent to such succession, his step-mother who had legal right to maintenance out of the estate of her husband ITA No. 809/JP/2015 & 1075/JP/2018 13 Integral Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ACIT/ITO brought a suit of maintenance against him and th…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…egal obligation to apply it in that way, it remains his income. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. We need only add that the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1993] 1 ITR 135 does not apply to this case; because this is not a case of an allocation of a sum out of revenue before it becomes income in the hands of the assessee. In other words, this is not a case of diversion of income before it accrues but of application of income after it accrues.” 40. We feel this judgment applies on all fours to the case o…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…egal obligation to apply it in that way, it remains his income. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. We need only add that the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1993] 1 ITR 135 does not apply to this case; because this is not a case of an allocation of a sum out of revenue before it becomes income in the hands of the assessee. In other words, this is not a case of diversion of income before it accrues but of application of income after it accrues.” 40. We feel this judgment applies on all fours to the case o…

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 997/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 1St Floor, Parekh Vora Ward-2(1)(2), बनाम/ Chambers, 66, Nagindas Mumbai. Vs. Master Road, Fort, Mumbai. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcc 2192 B

…ar shall always and absolutely belong to be paid over to the Trustees of the Tulsi Foundation Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee has also relied upon the followings decisions: i) Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria vs. CIT (1 ITR 135) ii) CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) 3 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd. iii) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) and others. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has considered the above decisions and held that this is not a case of diversion by overriding title as the amounts paid to Tulsi Foundation Trust are out o…

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 999/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R

…ear shall always and absolutely belong to be paid over to the Trustees of the Tulsi Foundation Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee has also relied upon the followings decisions: i) Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria vs. CIT (1 ITR 135) ii) CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) iii) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) and others. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has considered the above decisions and held that this is not a case of diversion by overriding title as the amounts paid to Tulsi Foundation Trust are out of income received by the company a…

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R

…ear shall always and absolutely belong to be paid over to the Trustees of the Tulsi Foundation Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee has also relied upon the followings decisions: i) Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria vs. CIT (1 ITR 135) ii) CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) iii) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) and others. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has considered the above decisions and held that this is not a case of diversion by overriding title as the amounts paid to Tulsi Foundation Trust are out of income received by the company a…

Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

For Appellant: Shri Hero Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R

…ear shall always and absolutely belong to be paid over to the Trustees of the Tulsi Foundation Trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee has also relied upon the followings decisions: i) Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria vs. CIT (1 ITR 135) ii) CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas (41 ITR 367) iii) CIT vs. Sunil J Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) and others. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) has considered the above decisions and held that this is not a case of diversion by overriding title as the amounts paid to Tulsi Foundation Trust are out of income received by the company a…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Salora International Ltd

ITA/12/2003HC Delhi13 May 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

For Appellant: Mr Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior StandingFor Respondent: Mr Salil Kapoor, Mr Sanat Kapoor, Ms Ananya
Section 260ASection 391Section 50

…ncome. He claimed a deduction for the sums that he was required to pay as maintenance to his wife and his children in terms of a decree suffered by him. He relied on the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria v. CIT: (1933) 1 ITR 135 (PC) in support of his claim. In Bejoy Singh Dudhuria (supra), the appellant (assessee) was a Raja whose stepmother had brought a suit for maintenance which culminated in a compromise decree under which the stepmother was to be paid a sum of Rs.1,100 per month which was declared as a charge on the properties in the hands of the assessee. The C…

Raja Bejoy Singh Budhuria v. CIT (1 ITR 135) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax