How many judgments cite S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta?

126 judgments on BharatTax cite S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta (83 ITR 700), spanning 2005 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 14A, Section 143(3), Section 194-I, Section 2(13), Section 24.

S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

83 ITR 700Supreme Court of India1972#820 most cited

What is S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta authority for?

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

126

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

S.G. Mercantile Corporation v. CIT · Section 14 · income from other sources · residuary head of income · Section 45 · capital gains · taxing income

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 14A Section 143(3)Section 194-I Section 2(13)Section 24 Section 37(1)Section 119

Issues it is cited on

section 57 profits and gains of business or profession section 32 section 56 income from other sources section 36(1)section 14a previous year section 143(2)transfer company business

Judgments citing S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. D.S.Promoters & Developers P. Ltd

The Appeal is dismissed but with no orders as to costs

ITA/654/2008HC Delhi01 May 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Section 22Section 260ASection 28

…ld either be as business or as a land owner and the arrangement determines in which of the two categories it falls. It is the substance and not the form of the matter that must be ascertained. S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. –vs- CIT, Calcutta, [1972] 83 ITR 700 is a precedent for the proposition that dealing with any real property, as also the activity of taking a property on lease, setting up a market thereon and letting out shops and stalls in the market can constitute business activity. Our attention has been drawn to CIT –vs- Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., ITA No.654/2008 Page 6 of…

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee

ITA/1156/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad

Section 260A

…ITA 1156&1157/2007 Page 1 of 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1156/2007 & 1157/2007 % Judgment delivered on : 26.02.2009 INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LIMITED, NEW DELHI ….. Appellant Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ….. Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sunil Magon, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta, Advocate CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER…

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee

ITA/1157/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad

Section 260A

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee

ITA-1156/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009

For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad

Section 260A

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 1156/2007 & 1157/2007 % Judgment delivered on : 26.02.2009 INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LIMITED, NEW DELHI ….. Appellant Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ….. Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sunil Magon, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta, Advocate CORAM :- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER 1. Whether the Reporters of local pa…

Indian Oil Panipal Power Consortium Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result we answer the question as framed in favour of the assessee

ITA-1157/2007HC Delhi26 Feb 2009

For Appellant: Mr B.B. Ahuja, Sr. Advocate withFor Respondent: Ms Prem Lata Bansal & Mr Mohan Prasad

Section 260A

Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. D.P. Sandu Bros Chembur (P) Ltd

C.A. No.-002335-002335 - 2003Supreme Court31 Jan 2005

For Respondent: D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd

Section 10(3)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45Section 48Section 55(2)Section 56

…Section 48, it could still impose tax under the residuary head is thus unacceptable. If the income cannot be taxed under Section 45, it cannot be taxed at all. (See: S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta (1972) 83 ITR 700). Furthermore, it would be illogical and against the language of Section 56 to hold that everything that is exempted from capital gains by statute could be taxed as a casual or non recurring receipt under Section 10(3) read with Section 56. We are fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody Vs. S.A…