What is Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. CIT authority for?

Amounts collected by an assessee as an agent or for a predefined purpose are diverted by an overriding title and do not form part of the assessee's income. Such amounts, even if refundable on contingencies, are not considered uncertain and create a ripening obligation.

Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. CIT (270 ITR 1)

Q: How many judgments cite Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. CIT?

166 judgments on BharatTax cite Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. CIT (270 ITR 1), spanning 2012 to 2024.

DCIT (E), CIRCLE- GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SEWA- THDC, RISHIKESH

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross

ITA 3425/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 11(2)Section 127Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 3425/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 DCIT (Exemption), Vs M/s. Sewa-THDC, Circle, Pragati Puram, Byepass Road, Ghaziabad Rishikesh-249201 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADAS 8383 A CO No. 129/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 M/s. Sewa-THDC, Vs DCIT (Exemption), Pragati Puram, Byepass Road, Circle, Rishikesh-249201 Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADAS 8383 A Assessee by : Sh. Swarn Singh, CA Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date…

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 22/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…e, it is distinguishable. The decision relied by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Realest Builders and Services Ltd. – 307 ITR 202 (SC) in addition to the following cases – (a) Siddheswar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT & Others – 270 ITR 1 (SC); (b) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT – 202 ITR 492 (Cal). (c) Sugauli Sugar Works (Impugned) Ltd. – 236 ITR 518 (SC); 5 I.T.A. Nos. 73- 79/Coch/2014 Page 7 ITANo. 22/Coch/ 2023 (AY 2015-16) High Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (d) Star India P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT – 311 ITR (ST) 235 (Mumbai). (e) Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath – 171 ITR 417…

HIGH RANGE FOODS PVT LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 64/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 41(1)

…e, it is distinguishable. The decision relied by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Realest Builders and Services Ltd. – 307 ITR 202 (SC) in addition to the following cases – (a) Siddheswar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT & Others – 270 ITR 1 (SC); (b) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT – 202 ITR 492 (Cal). (c) Sugauli Sugar Works (Impugned) Ltd. – 236 ITR 518 (SC); 5 I.T.A. Nos. 73-79/Coch/2014 (d) Star India P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT – 311 ITR (ST) 235 (Mumbai). (e) Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath – 171 ITR 417 (All.); (f) Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. – 161 ITR 524 (…

AJINKYATARA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , SATARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 543/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar

Section 79A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Shaunagar Shendre, Dist.-Satara - 415519 PAN : AAAAA0510E .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Satara ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue by : Shri Abhinay Kumbhar सुनवाई की तारी…

AJINKYATARA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , SATARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 545/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar

Section 79A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Shaunagar Shendre, Dist.-Satara - 415519 PAN : AAAAA0510E .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Satara ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue by : Shri Abhinay Kumbhar सुनवाई की तारी…

AJINKYATARA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , SATARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 544/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar

Section 79A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2019 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Shaunagar Shendre, Dist.-Satara - 415519 PAN : AAAAA0510E .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Satara ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue by : Shri Abhinay Kumbhar सुनवाई की तारी…

SHRI KAMREJ VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDHYOG MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, SURAT

ITA 1740/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1735 & 1740/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat. At & Post Sayan, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4058F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Khand Mandli Ltd., Surat. N.H. No.8, Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist: Surat, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4817N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…re us. 7. Shri Mehul K. Patel, learned Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that issue under consideration, in assessee`s case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, 270 ITR 1(SC), therefore penalty should not be levied on the assessee. He further pointed out that there is no definite charge on the assessee, as the penalty was initiated on both limbs, that is, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken b…

SHREE SAYAN VIBHAG SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4),, SURAT

ITA 1735/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1735 & 1740/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Mandli Ltd., Surat. At & Post Sayan, Tal: Olpad, Dist: Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4058F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Vs. The Ito, Ward-5(4), Udyog Khand Mandli Ltd., Surat. N.H. No.8, Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist: Surat, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas4817N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sita Ram Meena, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…re us. 7. Shri Mehul K. Patel, learned Counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that issue under consideration, in assessee`s case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, 270 ITR 1(SC), therefore penalty should not be levied on the assessee. He further pointed out that there is no definite charge on the assessee, as the penalty was initiated on both limbs, that is, furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken b…

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

ITA 1655/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT

Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

…d as income of the assessee. At best it is governed by the principle of diversion of Income by overriding title. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, 270 ITR 1(SC), wherein it has been laid down that in case the assessee acted as an agent in collecting the amounts and remitting the same to the Government and trustees, then the money collected by the assessee was not reaching the assessee as part of its income, but the collection was made “for and on behalf of the person to whom it is payable”. We further…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

ITA 1645/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT

Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

…d as income of the assessee. At best it is governed by the principle of diversion of Income by overriding title. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, 270 ITR 1(SC), wherein it has been laid down that in case the assessee acted as an agent in collecting the amounts and remitting the same to the Government and trustees, then the money collected by the assessee was not reaching the assessee as part of its income, but the collection was made “for and on behalf of the person to whom it is payable”. We further…

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

…in case the Govt. policy regarding participation of FDI insurance business does not change in such situation, the option money remains with the assessee. In this connection, it is stated that in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT in 270 ITR 1, it has been held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that so long the amount is refundable on happening of certain contingencies or events, the same cannot be treated as uncertain though the time of repayment Page 37 of 155 may be indefinite. On occurrence of the specified events, the right to demand refund would accrue to the depositor. The obligation,…

WEST BENGAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,(EXEMPTION)CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose while both the stay applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1727/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 & S.A. Nos. 18 & 19/Kol/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 West Bengal Pollution Control Board...................................…………………………........Appellant 10A, Block – La, Paribesh Bhawan, Sector – Iii, Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700 098. [Pan: Aaalw 0078 N] Vs A.C.I.T, (Exemption), Circle – 1(1), Kolkata....................……………………………......Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri I, Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 20, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 10(46)Section 143(3)Section 4

…garding the statutory language. Depending upon the nature and character of the deposits/payments, should be given to hold whether or not the amount received was income/profit." 49. In the case of Siddeshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors., (2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC), the word 'income' or 'profit' was examined and interpreted. In the said case, issue arose whether deposits/payments made in different heads/parties was diversion of income at source or not and whether the deposits/funds have to be included in the income earned. The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature and character of the deposits/payment…

WEST BENGAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,(EXEMPTION)CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose while both the stay applications of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 & S.A. Nos. 18 & 19/Kol/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 1726 & 1727/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 West Bengal Pollution Control Board...................................…………………………........Appellant 10A, Block – La, Paribesh Bhawan, Sector – Iii, Bidhannagar, Kolkata – 700 098. [Pan: Aaalw 0078 N] Vs A.C.I.T, (Exemption), Circle – 1(1), Kolkata....................……………………………......Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri I, Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 20, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 10(46)Section 143(3)Section 4

…garding the statutory language. Depending upon the nature and character of the deposits/payments, should be given to hold whether or not the amount received was income/profit." 49. In the case of Siddeshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors., (2004) 270 ITR 1 (SC), the word 'income' or 'profit' was examined and interpreted. In the said case, issue arose whether deposits/payments made in different heads/parties was diversion of income at source or not and whether the deposits/funds have to be included in the income earned. The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature and character of the deposits/payment…

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1515/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 438Section 43B

…d as income of the assessee. At best it is governed by the principle of diversion of Income by overriding title. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, 270 ITR 1(SC), wherein it has been laid down that in case the assessee acted as an agent in collecting the amounts and remitting the same to the Government and trustees, then the money collected by the assessee was not reaching the assessee as part of its income, but the collection was made “for and on behalf of the person to whom it is payable”. We further…

CAVALCADE PROPERTIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 12(1)(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4030/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am& Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4030/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM& SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4030/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Ward 12(1)(4), M/s Cavalcade Properties Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. Churchgate, बिधम/ Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Mumbai-400 020 Opp-SIDBI, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (east), Mumbai 400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCC6226B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4273/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Ward 12(1)(4), M/s Cavalcade Properties Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt…