Ram Prashad v. CIT

86 ITR 122Supreme Court of India1972#9904 most cited

What is Ram Prashad v. CIT authority for?

A director can have a dual capacity, acting both as a director and an employee. Control over a company does not always need to be day-to-day and can be exercised through articles of association or by virtue of designation and seniority.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ram Prashad v CIT · 86 ITR 122 · SC · 1972 · employee-employer relationship · director employee · control over company · dual capacity · managing director · articles of association

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 15Section 153ASection 17(1)(iv)Section 271BSection 44ABSection 1961

Issues it is cited on

salarysection 13opportunity of being heardprescribedpersoncompanyindiabusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing Ram Prashad v. CIT

Sri Mukesh Gupta vs. The Deputy Commissioner of

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/283/2022HC Karnataka31 Oct 2025

Bench: D K SINGH,RAJESH RAI K

Section 260

…ee from the company 12 are professional charges. A director may have duel capacity. He may be both director as well as employee. This principle is enumerated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Prashad v. CIT reported in (1972) 86 ITR 122 (SC). The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows:- "Though an agent as such is not a servant, a servant is generally for some purposes his master's implied agent, the extent of the agency depending upon the duties or position of the servant. It is again true that a director of a company is not a servant but an agent…

Praveen Bakshi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for both years are partly allowed as above

ITA 7135/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 271BSection 44A

…t Furniture system Pvt. Ltd. could not be held as an employee of D-Art Furniture system Pvt. Ltd. as he had full control over D-Art Furniture system Pvt. Ltd. as promoter. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prasad 86 ITR 122, the AO held that there was no employee-employer relationship; hence, the salary income shown in the ITR was assessed as income from other sources.Consequently, the claim of deduction/exemption of conveyance allowances of Rs.9,600/- and HRA of Rs.24,000/- was disallowed and charged to tax. Further, the AO held bank deposits of Rs.28,50,025/- as un…

Praveen Bakshi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for both years are partly allowed as above

ITA 7134/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 153ASection 271BSection 44A

…t Furniture system Pvt. Ltd. could not be held as an employee of D-Art Furniture system Pvt. Ltd. as he had full control over D-Art Furniture system Pvt. Ltd. as promoter. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prasad 86 ITR 122, the AO held that there was no employee-employer relationship; hence, the salary income shown in the ITR was assessed as income from other sources.Consequently, the claim of deduction/exemption of conveyance allowances of Rs.9,600/- and HRA of Rs.24,000/- was disallowed and charged to tax. Further, the AO held bank deposits of Rs.28,50,025/- as un…

M/S. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

…t deputed employees are at senior level and it would be inappropriate to say that that they were under the control and supervision of the Appellant. In this regard, the Appellant wishes to place reliance on Supreme Court decision in case of Ram Prashad [1972] 86 ITR 122 (SC) wherein it was observed that in terms of managing director, control need not be day to day and it could be exercised through articles of association. Similarly, in present case the degree of control has to been judged based on designation/seniority of deputed employees. Conditions laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal…

Sri.Mukesh Gupta, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 209/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR
Section 14A

…the assessee from the company are professional charges. A director may have duel capacity. He may be both director as well as employee. This principle is enumerated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Prashad v. CIT reported in (1972) 86 ITR 122 (SC). The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as follows:- “Though an agent as such is not a servant, a servant is generally for some purposes his master's implied agent, the extent of the agency depending upon the duties or position of the servant. It is again true that a director of a company is not a servant but an agent inasm…

Sri.Mukesh Gupta, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 208/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR
Section 14A

…the assessee from the company are professional charges. A director may have duel capacity. He may be both director as well as employee. This principle is enumerated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Prashad v. CIT reported in (1972) 86 ITR 122 (SC). The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as follows:- “Though an agent as such is not a servant, a servant is generally for some purposes his master's implied agent, the extent of the agency depending upon the duties or position of the servant. It is again true that a director of a company is not a servant but an agent inasm…

Sri. Mukesh Gupta, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2739/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Chetan R. Addl.CIT-DR
Section 14A

…the assessee from the company are professional charges. A director may have duel capacity. He may be both director as well as employee. This principle is enumerated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Prashad v. CIT reported in (1972) 86 ITR 122 (SC). The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as follows:- “Though an agent as such is not a servant, a servant is generally for some purposes his master's implied agent, the extent of the agency depending upon the duties or position of the servant. It is again true that a director of a company is not a servant but an agent inasm…

Dy CIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hurkisondas Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7297/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa-Ld.Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 192Section 194JSection 201(1)

…relationship and therefore, tax was rightfully deducted u/s 194J. 4.2 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Ram Gopal & Son Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Hyderabad (25 ITR 449 SC) and also on Ram Prashad Vs. CIT {1972; 86 ITR 122 SC} wherein it was held that the distinguishing factors would be control and supervision. As per contractual terms of assessee with these consultant doctors, there was no control on the doctors as to how work assigned to them was to be carried out. They were working as independent professionals and also there was no supervision by way of instructi…

Sunderraj Srinivasan, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 36(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7243/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7243/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Shri Sunderraj Srinivasan Ito-35(3)(4) Flat No.401/402, Sumeet Income Tax Bldg, Bandra Vs. Chhaya, Plot No.A-213, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Sector-20, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400706. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Ameps3033R (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Vipul Joshi Revenue By: Ms. Surabhi Sharma(Sr. Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma(Sr. AR)
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 89

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7243/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Shri Sunderraj Srinivasan ITO-35(3)(4) Flat No.401/402, Sumeet Income Tax Bldg, Bandra Vs. Chhaya, Plot No.A-213, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Sector-20, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400706. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. :AMEPS3033R (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee by: Shri Vipul Joshi Revenue by: Ms. Surabhi Sharma(Sr. AR) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 10/12/2019 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date o…

M/S. Ajay Kumar Gupta (HUF), Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5775/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 234BSection 40Section 80C

…e is 31st July of the relevant AY. The assessee has filed his original return on 01.10.2010 which is a belated return. As per section 139(5), belated return filed u/s 139(4) cannot be revised .- as held in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha Vs. CIT(1996) 86 ITR 122 (SC). Therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee is invalid in which assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80C amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- which the assessee inadvertently could not claim in the Original return. As 4 such, Rs. 1,00,000/- should be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. As per above audit memo, the Assessing Off…

Satya Sheel Khosla, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 882/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Satya Sheel Khosla, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Villa-D, Empire Estate, Ward-24(3), Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Rd., New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aampk0236G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri C.S. Aggarwal & Gautam Jain, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Surjit Kumar, Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri C.S. Aggarwal & Gautam JainFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar, DR
Section 17(3)Section 28

…the status of the appellant. Was the appellant an employee of Suzuki India or not? We hold that the appellant was a joint venture partner in that company, and not an employee of the company. 16. In Ram Prashad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi (1972) 86 ITR 122, the Supreme Court has observed at page 126 that: “A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of his master. An agent, on the other hand, in the exercise of his work, is not subject to the direct control or supervision of the principal, though he is bound to exercise his authority in accordance with all lawful orders and instruction…

Ram Prashad v. CIT (86 ITR 122) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax