Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT

42 ITR 392Supreme Court of India1961#2952 most cited

What is Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT authority for?

The Income-tax Act does not exhaustively define 'business'. However, it denotes an activity undertaken with the primary objective of earning profit, signifying that profit is derived through a process of production.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT · 42 ITR 392 · SC · business income · definition of business · activity for profit · process of production · intention to earn profit

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Senairam Doongarmall v. CIT

Phi Seeds Ltd vs. ACIT Coy Circle 14 (1)

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 4383/DEL/2006[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2003-2004

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 Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1)

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1988/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2002-2003

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…

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 1625/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde-ARFor Respondent: Jasbir Chauhan-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 2Section 254(1)

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.1625/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Morgan St…