Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT

42 ITR 392Supreme Court of India1961#2995 most cited
40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 10transfersection 143personcompanyindiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT

ACIT CENT .CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2396/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th 15Th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8268P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rakesh RanjanFor Respondent: K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar
Section 115JSection 143(2)

…Sultan & Sons 1959 Supp (2) SCR 375: (AIR 1959 SC 814), Godrej & Co. v. Commr. of Income-tax (1960) 1 SCR 527: (AIR 1959 SC 1352), Commr. of Income- tax v. Jairam Valji (1959) 35 ITR 148: (AIR 1959 SC 291), Senairam Doongarmall v. Commr. of Income Tax (1961) 42 ITR 392 (AIR 1961 SC 1579)." The Apex Court in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT AIR 1965 SC 65, has further held- 11. Whether, a particular receipt is capital or income from business, has frequently engaged the attention of the courts. It may be broadly stated that what is received for loss of capital is a capital receipt: what is received as profit in…

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…taxability of an item under the provisions of the Act, Reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) 95 ITR 664 Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs. CIT Bihar & Orissa (ii) (3 ITC 219) Indian Turpentine & Rosin co Ltd. Vs. CIT United Provinces. (iii) 42 ITR 392 (SC) Senariram Doongarmal vs. CIT (iv) 74 ITR 7 (SC) New Savan Sugar & Gur Refining Co. Ltd. 2 Finding of AO in remand proceeding Issue: Purchase invoices - That during the course of remand In the additional evidence submitted by the proceedings assessee submitted following 17 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO assessee, he was furnished copies of some of det…

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

ITA 291/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…been held, by the hon’ble Supreme Court in multiple cases, to denote an activity carried on with the intention of earning profit. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 392 (SC) wherein it has been held that: “The word "business" is not defined exhaustively in the Income-tax Act, but it has been held both by this court and the Judicial Committee to denote an activity with the object of earning profit. To say that a business is being carried on, means no more than that profit is to be earned by a process of production…

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

ITA 5277/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…been held, by the hon’ble Supreme Court in multiple cases, to denote an activity carried on with the intention of earning profit. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 392 (SC) wherein it has been held that: “The word "business" is not defined exhaustively in the Income-tax Act, but it has been held both by this court and the Judicial Committee to denote an activity with the object of earning profit. To say that a business is being carried on, means no more than that profit is to be earned by a process of production…

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

ITA 5276/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…been held, by the hon’ble Supreme Court in multiple cases, to denote an activity carried on with the intention of earning profit. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 392 (SC) wherein it has been held that: “The word "business" is not defined exhaustively in the Income-tax Act, but it has been held both by this court and the Judicial Committee to denote an activity with the object of earning profit. To say that a business is being carried on, means no more than that profit is to be earned by a process of production…

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

ITA 5275/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…been held, by the hon’ble Supreme Court in multiple cases, to denote an activity carried on with the intention of earning profit. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 392 (SC) wherein it has been held that: “The word "business" is not defined exhaustively in the Income-tax Act, but it has been held both by this court and the Judicial Committee to denote an activity with the object of earning profit. To say that a business is being carried on, means no more than that profit is to be earned by a process of production…

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

ITA 5274/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…been held, by the hon’ble Supreme Court in multiple cases, to denote an activity carried on with the intention of earning profit. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 392 (SC) wherein it has been held that: “The word "business" is not defined exhaustively in the Income-tax Act, but it has been held both by this court and the Judicial Committee to denote an activity with the object of earning profit. To say that a business is being carried on, means no more than that profit is to be earned by a process of production…

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

ITA 5273/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…been held, by the hon’ble Supreme Court in multiple cases, to denote an activity carried on with the intention of earning profit. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 392 (SC) wherein it has been held that: “The word "business" is not defined exhaustively in the Income-tax Act, but it has been held both by this court and the Judicial Committee to denote an activity with the object of earning profit. To say that a business is being carried on, means no more than that profit is to be earned by a process of production…

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner of Vs. 4th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, PAN: AAADFD2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv Revenue by: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv Date of Hearing 12/01/2021 Date of pronouncement 11/02/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This appeal is filed by the Dabur invest Corporation, [ The appel…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS (I) (P) LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/410/2012HC Karnataka18 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.410 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE. 3. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS (I) (P) LTD., NO.122, (PART-1), EPIP WHITE FIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560066. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWAL…

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3328/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2019AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…e Supreme Court is squarely applicable over the facts of the case. The reliance in this regard is also placed on the Supreme Court judgment In the case of New Savan Sugar & Gur Refining Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1969) 74 ITR 7 and Serial Ram Doongarmal Vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 392. As a matter of fact, the appellant had only earned the income from dividend and interest on FD which were taxable under the head of income from other source and no business income has been offered by the appellant. 2.13. It has also been noticed that the provisions of Section 28(iv) of the I.T. Act are also applicable only when the tax payer has…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. CHITTRANJAN DUA, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5884/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…& Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265 (Mum) etc. in support of their contention that…

MR. CHITTRANJAN DUA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…& Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265 (Mum) etc. in support of their contention that…

DUSHYANT,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 174/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Dushyant Vs. The Ito S/O Sh. Viptu Ram R/O Vpo Sunder Nagar Tata Pani Distt, Mandi Distt- Mandi, H.P. Pan No. Apfpd0262D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Inder Mohan Revenue By : Shri Manjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Inder MohanFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh
Section 49Section 54

…has been held as a capital receipt distinct from the compensation received for acquisition of land and thus not taxable in the hands of the assessee. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Senairam Doongarmall Vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 392 (S.C). Relevant finding from the order of the ITAT is extracted hereunder : “18. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. The issue before us pertains to determining the nature of the compensation received of Rs.11,25,000/- whether it was in the nature of compensation received for acquisition of the assessees property as held by the CIT(…

UMESH KUMAR,MANDI vs. ITO, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 657/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Inder MohanFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh
Section 144Section 54

…has been held as a capital receipt distinct from the compensation received for acquisition of land and thus not taxable in the hands of the assessee. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Senairam Doongarmall Vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 392 (S.C). Relevant finding from the order of the ITAT is extracted hereunder : “18. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. The issue before us pertains to determining the nature of the compensation received of Rs.11,25,000/- whether it was in the nature of compensation received for acquisition of the assessees property as held by the CIT(…

M/S. PHI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 4269/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…pendent and unrelated parties and it is not permissible for the revenue cannot be allowed to take business decision on assessee’s behalf. The revenue has clearly confused “measure of payment” with the quality and character of payment. (Ref. Senniram Dongarmal 42 ITR 392, SC at Pg. 1/dPB-1) vii In any event, the mode and basis of payment of compensation for labour is a matter between the company and the farmer. If the farmer is satisfied with such an arrangement, which he enters into year after year, it is not for the revenue to contend that the assessee should have adopted some other business model, and state th…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS (P) LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2223/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…pendent and unrelated parties and it is not permissible for the revenue cannot be allowed to take business decision on assessee’s behalf. The revenue has clearly confused “measure of payment” with the quality and character of payment. (Ref. Senniram Dongarmal 42 ITR 392, SC at Pg. 1/dPB-1) vii In any event, the mode and basis of payment of compensation for labour is a matter between the company and the farmer. If the farmer is satisfied with such an arrangement, which he enters into year after year, it is not for the revenue to contend that the assessee should have adopted some other business model, and state th…

M/S. PHI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1903/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…pendent and unrelated parties and it is not permissible for the revenue cannot be allowed to take business decision on assessee’s behalf. The revenue has clearly confused “measure of payment” with the quality and character of payment. (Ref. Senniram Dongarmal 42 ITR 392, SC at Pg. 1/dPB-1) vii In any event, the mode and basis of payment of compensation for labour is a matter between the company and the farmer. If the farmer is satisfied with such an arrangement, which he enters into year after year, it is not for the revenue to contend that the assessee should have adopted some other business model, and state th…

M/S PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3670/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…pendent and unrelated parties and it is not permissible for the revenue cannot be allowed to take business decision on assessee’s behalf. The revenue has clearly confused “measure of payment” with the quality and character of payment. (Ref. Senniram Dongarmal 42 ITR 392, SC at Pg. 1/dPB-1) vii In any event, the mode and basis of payment of compensation for labour is a matter between the company and the farmer. If the farmer is satisfied with such an arrangement, which he enters into year after year, it is not for the revenue to contend that the assessee should have adopted some other business model, and state th…

PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 5285/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.P. Jain, [Assessment Year: 2002-03] [Assessment Year: 2003-04] [Assessment Year: 2005-06] [Assessment Year: 2007-08] [Assessment Year: 2008-09] [Assessment Year: 2009-10] [Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave Circle 14(1) Part – Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Assessment Year: 2009-10] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd Circle 14(1) B – 4, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – Ii, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcs 5374 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)

…pendent and unrelated parties and it is not permissible for the revenue cannot be allowed to take business decision on assessee’s behalf. The revenue has clearly confused “measure of payment” with the quality and character of payment. (Ref. Senniram Dongarmal 42 ITR 392, SC at Pg. 1/dPB-1) vii In any event, the mode and basis of payment of compensation for labour is a matter between the company and the farmer. If the farmer is satisfied with such an arrangement, which he enters into year after year, it is not for the revenue to contend that the assessee should have adopted some other business model, and state th…

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2