Seth Pushalal Mansighka (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

66 ITR 159Supreme Court of India1967#5302 most cited

What is Seth Pushalal Mansighka (P.) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income accrues at the place where title to goods passes to the buyer upon payment of the price. For offshore supply of equipment, if the transaction is completed outside India, no income accrues to the assessee in India.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Seth Pushalal Mansighka (P.) Ltd. v. CIT · income accrual · place of title passage · offshore supply · 9(1)(i) · business income · non-resident

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)Section 144Section 1962Section 2(31)Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 44bbbsection 9(1)(i)permanent establishmentsection 9(1)section 144c(13)liable to taxfinal assessment ordernon-residentsection 144cdraft assessment ordersection 19transfer

Judgments citing Seth Pushalal Mansighka (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

The ACIT, Eluru vs. M/S. Jeypote Sugar Company Ltd., Chagallu

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 268/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. The Jeypore Sugar Eluru. Company Ltd., D.No. 6/69, Chagallu, W.G. District. Pan No. Aaact 9942 R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 50/Viz/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 268/Viz/2015) (Asst. Year : 2010-11) M/S. The Jeypore Sugar Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Company Ltd., D.No. 6/69, Eluru. Chagallu, W.G. District. Pan No. Aaact 9942 R (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Das – Sr.DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 369(1)(iv)Section 37Section 40A(7)Section 40k

…erred in deleting the addition of Rs.38,65,428/- made for not admitting the income as Per the sale invoices. 3. The CT(A) ought to have considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sethi Pushalal Marsinghkha Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 66 ITR 159, where in the Apex Court clearly held that the words "accrue” and “arise" do not mean actual receipt of the profits or gains, but both these words are used in contradistinction to the word „receive‟ and indicate a right to receive. If the assessee acquires the right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him, though it ma…

Ravi Poddar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 130/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena (JCIT)
Section 148Section 2

…ppears that the expressions ‘accrued’ or ‘arisen’ or ‘received’ or ‘deemed to be received’ have been used in the Act and they must be given their plain meaning in the absence of any particular definition. (d) Seth Pushalal Mansinghkla (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 159 (SC): ............................... The word ‘accrue’ and arise’ do not mean actual receipt of the profits or gains. Both these words are used in contradistinction to the word ‘receive’ and indicate a right to receive. (e) Seth Madan Lal Modi vs. CIT (2003) 126 Taxman 129/261 ITR 49 (Delhi): Dealing with the scope of total income, section 5 pr…