Shri H.H. Rama Varma v. CIT

187 ITR 308Supreme Court of India1991#2388 most cited

What is Shri H.H. Rama Varma v. CIT authority for?

The phrase "any sum" in Section 68 of the Income-tax Act refers only to a "sum of money" or "physical receipt," and does not include non-cash transactions, book entries, notional adjustments, or payments in kind.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shri H.H. Rama Varma v. CIT · 187 ITR 308 · Section 68 · cash credit · unexplained money · "any sum" · "sum of money" · physical receipt · book entry · payment in kind · notional adjustment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 68Section 80GSection 115BBESection 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 80g(2)(a)section 76section 80g(2)section 261section 74share capital and share premiumsection 260ashare application moneyentry operatorpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)gross total incomesection 80g

Judgments citing Shri H.H. Rama Varma v. CIT

ITO - 16(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashwin M. Savani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6143/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarincome Tax Officer-16(1)(1) Shri Ashwin M. Savani Room No. 436A, 4Th Floor 5B Feltham House Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 10 Jn Heredia Road, Mumbai 400020 Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aafps1656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ThakurFor Respondent: Ms. Rupal Vora
Section 56(2)Section 69

…) ACIT vs. Harresh N. Mehta, ITA No. 6805/Mum/2010 dated 31.01.2012 iii) Sharat Kumar Babulal Jain vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No. 29/Vizag/2011 dated 11.08.2011 iv) CIT vs. Kasturi and Sons Ltd., Supreme Court dated 06.03.1999 v) H.H. Sri Rama Verma vs. CIT, 187 ITR 308 (SC) vi) Hatkesh Co. Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No. 328 of 2014 and other (Bom) dated 22.08.2016. vii) ACIT vs. Anju Jitendra Mehta, ITA No. 6399/Mum/2010 dated 05.09.2012 viii) ACIT vs. Rohan Jitendra Mehta, ITA No. 6398/Mum/2010 dated 18.04.2012 5. The learned D.R., on the other hand, opposed the contentions raised by the learned A.R.…

Nash Fashions (India) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 346/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri M. L. Borad (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 263Section 40Section 80G

…e. However, since in the case before the High Court, the donation was of shares and there was no finding of fact that the transaction of donation was in substance in cash, deduction was not allowed to the assessee. In case of the decision of Supreme Court in 187 ITR 308 and Gujarat High Court in 115 CTR 120 relied by CIT, the donation was of shares and therefore it was held that deduction u/s.80G is not available. However, the Supreme Court in its decision approved the decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Srnt. Dhiraj Ben R. Amin 141 ITR 875 (Supra). Thus the law is that if in substance the transaction is a…

ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Anand Enterprises Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1614/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Anand Enterprises Ltd. [Pan: Aacca 1175 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 56/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2017 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Anand Enterprises Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-13(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 1175 F] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Ld. AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 2Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Hon’ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s Anand Enterprises Ltd. [PAN: AACCA 1175 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 56/Kol/2016 (Arising out of I.T.A No. 1614/Kol/2017 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Anand Enterprises Ltd. -vs- ITO, Ward-13(1), Kolkata [PAN: AACCA 1175 F] (Cross Objector) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri G.Hangshing, CIT DR For the Respondent : Shri S.M. Surana, Ld. AR Date of Hearing : 17.09.2018 Da…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 282/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…f the Act and submitted that admittedly the entire transactions were book entries without actual receipt of money. For the interpretation of the term “any sum” he relied on the following case- laws:- • H.H. Sri Rama Verma vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1991) 187 ITR 308 (SC) • D.C.I.T. vs. Bhartiya Hotels Ltd. Kolkata ‘A’ Bench of the Kolkta Tribunal ITA No. 941/Kol/2011 • Jatia Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1994) 206 ITR 0718 • ACIT vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal (2011) 142 TTJ 0035 (UO) • ACIT vs. Kerala Transport Co. (1994) 50 TTj 0189 8.1. Alternatively and without prejudice to his argument tha…

M/S Gold Touch Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(3), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 327/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…en to the karigars. Ld. AR for the assessee in support of his claim relied on the judgment / orders of Hon'ble courts and Tribunal which are reproduced below:- a) Jatia Investment Calcutta 206 ITR 718 (Cal) b) Kantilal Verma 52 ITD 412 (Pune) c) HH Rama Verma 187 ITR 308 at 310 (SC) d) Amon Bolu Rajesh 102 ITR 403 (AP) e) Saru Smelting Allahabad 116 ITR 766 (All) On the other hand, Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of Authorities Below. 12. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case it was observed by AO that the assessee is paying charges to the karigars…

ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Blessing Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 271/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 250

…f the Act and submitted that admittedly the entire transactions were book entries without actual receipt of money. For the interpretation of the term “any sum” he relied on the following case-laws:-  H.H. Sri Rama Verma vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1991) 187 ITR 308 (SC)  D.C.I.T. vs. Bhartiya Hotels Ltd. Kolkata „A‟ Bench of the Kolkta Tribunal  Jatia Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1994) 206 ITR 0718  ACIT vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal (2011) 142 TTJ 0035 (UO)  ACIT vs. Kerala Transport Co. (1994) 50 TTj 0189 8.1. Alternatively and without prejudice to his argument that Section 68 of the A…

ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata vs. Anupam Nandi, Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 774/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.774/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 I.T.O., Ward-46(1) -Vs.- Shri Anupam Nandi Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Abipn 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Md.Ghayas Uddin, Jcit,Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Miraj D.Shah, Ar

For Appellant: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR
Section 28

…He argued that the expression ‘sum’ mentioned in section 68 of the Act means only ‘sum of money’ and not otherwise, in support of which he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.H.Sri Rama Verma vs CIT reported in (1991) 187 ITR 308 (SC) wherein it was held :- The use of the expression “any sums paid” contemplates payment of an amount of money . One of the dictionary meanings of the expression “sum” means any indefinite amount of money. In the context in which expression “sums paid by the assessee” has been used make the legislative intent clear that it refers to amount of m…

Red Chillies Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5271/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Hiru RaiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

…e, therefore, submitted, provisions of section 194J would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the assessee has not paid any money. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) H.H. Sri Rama Verma v/s CIT [1990] 187 ITR 308 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 001 (Kar.); iii) CIT v/s Chief Accounts Officer, Bruhat Bangalore Mahagar Palike, [2015] ITA no.94 of 2015 and 466 of 2015, dated 20th September 2015 (Kar.). 11. Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention learned Authorised Representative, submitted, as per second proviso to section 40(a)(…