Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT

24 ITR 506Supreme Court of India1953#647 most cited

What is Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT authority for?

One cannot make a taxable profit or loss from transactions with oneself, as profit only arises from dealings with external third parties, even when transferring assets between different accounts or divisions of the same entity.

152

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT · profit from self · self-dealing transactions · internal transfers · anticipated business profits · permanent establishment · head office · shares business stock · investment account · taxable event · income recognition

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148A(b)Section 148A(d)Section 69ASection 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

unexplained jewellerysubstantive assessmentprotective assessmentinterest u/s 234aon-moneysection 234aunexplained investmentsalarysection 69aundisclosed incomesection 132section 153a

Judgments citing Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT

MRS. DEEPALI VIKKI AJMERA,MULUND vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, SR. D.R
Section 250

…previous year under consideration (relevant to A.Y. 2009-10). It is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period. Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. We take strength from decisions Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT[1953] 24 ITR 506(SC); ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das[1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC); CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44/54 Taxman 499 (SC) and CIT v. Basant Rai Takht Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (SC) for the proposition that each 'previous year' is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment and further, that the profits made; and the liabilities of los…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…ual income of the previous year and the facts must be taken as they existed during the previous year. It is relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sir Kikabhai Prenchand Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Bombay, (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC) page 506 wherein it was held that the State has no power to tax the potential future advantage and all it can tax is income, profits and gains made in the relevant accounting year. This decision if applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is to hold that the reopening of the assess…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…ual income of the previous year and the facts must be taken as they existed during the previous year. It is relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sir Kikabhai Prenchand Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Bombay, (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC) page 506 wherein it was held that the State has no power to tax the potential future advantage and all it can tax is income, profits and gains made in the relevant accounting year. This decision if applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is to hold that the reopening of the assess…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3756/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Yr.: 2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 44CSection 90

…the total income. It is pointed out that the Indian permanent establishment and the head office are one and the same person. It is settled position that one cannot make a profit out of oneself as held by the apex court in Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC). The impugned order of the Tribunal also places reliance upon the Special Bench decision in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corpn. v. Deputy DIT (2012) 16 ITR (Trib) 116 (Mumbai) [SB]; (2012) 19 taxmann.com 364 (Mum) [SB] to hold that man cannot make profit out of himself and, therefore, the interest received by the assessee from its own…

CHANDRA BROS.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 37(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 145(2)Section 250Section 44A

…evaluation is only an imaginary or notional profit and cannot be brought to tax for the following reasons: (i) As a result of such revaluation, there can be no profit, because the firm cannot make a profit out of itself: vide Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC). (ii) The process of revaluation of stock by itself cannot bring in any real profits: vide CIT vs. K.A.R.K. Firm (1934)2 ITR 183 (Rang); Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) and CIT vs. Hind Construction Ltd. 1974 CTR (SC) 157: (1972) 83 ITR 211 (SC); and iii) It is well settled that what is taxable under the income-tax law is on…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 1036/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)

…e of a specific provision to deal with this type of situations, a rational formula should be worked out to determine the profits and gains on transfer of the asset. We are also conscious about the judgments in the cases of Sir Kakabhai Premchand v. CIT (1952) 24 ITR 506 (S.C.), CIT v. Dhanuka and Sons ITR 24 (Cal.) (supra) in which it has been 7 Page ITA No. 1036/Del/2024 held that there cannot be an actual profit or loss of such transfer when no third party is involved and the items are kept in a different account of the assessee himself. The question of gain or loss would arise only in future when, the stock…

ACIT, CIRCLLE-34, KOLKATA vs. SUBHAS KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

…the Income- tax Act, tax is levied on the actual income of the previous year and the facts must be taken as they existed during the previous year. It is relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506 (SC) page 506 wherein it was held that the State has no power to tax the potential future advantage and all it can tax is income, profits and gains made in the relevant accounting year. This decision if applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is to hold that the reopening of the assess…

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

ITA 4610/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 221(1)

…ion which is completed when the rights so acquired by the assessee are exercised; none can make profits by dealing with himself, as is the settled legal position in the light of the settled legal position in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand Vs. CIT [(1953)) 24 ITR 506 (SC)]. It is for this reason that we are unable to uphold the action of the authorities below on the facts of this case. No matter how reasonable is it to assume that the assessee will make these profits, these profits cannot be brought to tax at this stage. That is what the legal position, for the detailed reasons set out above, is. 20. In our co…

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

ITA 4609/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 221(1)

…ion which is completed when the rights so acquired by the assessee are exercised; none can make profits by dealing with himself, as is the settled legal position in the light of the settled legal position in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand Vs. CIT [(1953)) 24 ITR 506 (SC)]. It is for this reason that we are unable to uphold the action of the authorities below on the facts of this case. No matter how reasonable is it to assume that the assessee will make these profits, these profits cannot be brought to tax at this stage. That is what the legal position, for the detailed reasons set out above, is. 20. In our co…

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. CI HOSPITALITY WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed and Cross

ITA 449/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 253(3)

…fact that income of a particular year is offered in a subsequent year cannot save the assessee from being liable for tax on income of the particular year. In this regard, we take guidance from orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT 24 ITR 506 (SC), Income Tax Officer vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas 52 ITR 335 (SC), CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. (supra) and CIT v s. Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC) for the proposition that for the purposes of assessment, every previous year is a distinct unit of time; and profits/losses made or after the relevant previous year is immaterial in assessi…

ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 (3), CHENNAI vs. M/S LAND MARVEL HOMES , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1055/CHNY/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1055/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Land Marvel Homes, The Acit, V. 45-47, Old No. 22-23, Central Circle -3(3), 3Rd Floor, 1St Main Road, Chennai. Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan:Aabfl-4387-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…015 and after going through the reply of the assessee on 23/27.03.2015, had accepted the explanation of the assessee which is a plausible view in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of KikabhaiPremchand v. CIT reported in [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “as a result of such revaluation, there could be no profit, because, the firm cannot make profit out of itself”. According to him, the process of revaluation of stock by itself cannot bring in any real profits and cited the decisions in the case of CIT v. K.A.R.K. Firm reported in [1934] 2 ITR 183…

I.T.O WARD 41(4)(1) , BKC MUMBAI vs. FAIRDEAL REALITIE, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3297/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year :2015-16 I.T.O Ward 41(4)(1),Bkc Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051. ---- Appellant Vs. Fairdeal Realite, Flexcel Park, B-Wing, Ground Floor, S.V.Road, Next To Karat Multiplex Mumbai 400 102 Pan: Aaaff-7074-K --- Respondent C.O No.29/Mum/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.3297/Mum/2023,A.Y.2015-16] Fairdeal Realite, Flexcel Park, B-Wing, Ground Floor, S.V.Road, Next To Karat Multiplex Mumbai 400 102 Pan: Aaaff-7074-K ...... Cross Objector Vs. I.T.O Ward 41(4)(1),Bkc Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051 ...... Appellant In Appeal Revenue By : Shri Surendra Meena Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena

…ssessee has not transferred these two units to anyone and hence there is no question of making any profit thereon. In this regard, the assessee took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT (1953)(24 ITR 506)(SC). It was also submitted that the established principle of law is that one cannot profit from himself. The Ld CIT(A) was convinced with the contentions of the assessee. Since the assessee has not sold the two units located in the basement, the Ld CIT(A) held that the impugned addition could not be made and accordingly deleted the same. The reve…

JCIT(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI VENKATARAM RADDY BEZAWADA REP BY L/H SMT. B. KAMAKSHI (WIFE )& OTHERS, NELLORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 36/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…he only would stand to gain from the transactions of the group even though undisclosed bank accounts were maintained in the name of minor shareholder. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (24 ITR 506) for the submission that regard must be had to the substance of the transaction rather than its mere form. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the additions made on substantive basis, in the hands of MSR was deleted in the first appellate order. This being the case, the deposits in undisclosed bank accounts of BVR had to be assessed in the hands of BVR…

JCIT(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI VENKATARAM RADDY BEZAWADA REP BY L/H SMT. B. KAMAKSHI (WIFE )& OTHERS, NELLORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 35/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…he only would stand to gain from the transactions of the group even though undisclosed bank accounts were maintained in the name of minor shareholder. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (24 ITR 506) for the submission that regard must be had to the substance of the transaction rather than its mere form. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the additions made on substantive basis, in the hands of MSR was deleted in the first appellate order. This being the case, the deposits in undisclosed bank accounts of BVR had to be assessed in the hands of BVR…

JCIT(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI VENKATARAM RADDY BEZAWADA REP BY L/H SMT. B. KAMAKSHI (WIFE )& OTHERS, NELLORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 34/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…he only would stand to gain from the transactions of the group even though undisclosed bank accounts were maintained in the name of minor shareholder. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (24 ITR 506) for the submission that regard must be had to the substance of the transaction rather than its mere form. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the additions made on substantive basis, in the hands of MSR was deleted in the first appellate order. This being the case, the deposits in undisclosed bank accounts of BVR had to be assessed in the hands of BVR…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 955/CHNY/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…he only would stand to gain from the transactions of the group even though undisclosed bank accounts were maintained in the name of minor shareholder. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (24 ITR 506) for the submission that regard must be had to the substance of the transaction rather than its mere form. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the additions made on substantive basis, in the hands of MSR was deleted in the first appellate order. This being the case, the deposits in undisclosed bank accounts of BVR had to be assessed in the hands of BVR…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 954/CHNY/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…he only would stand to gain from the transactions of the group even though undisclosed bank accounts were maintained in the name of minor shareholder. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (24 ITR 506) for the submission that regard must be had to the substance of the transaction rather than its mere form. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the additions made on substantive basis, in the hands of MSR was deleted in the first appellate order. This being the case, the deposits in undisclosed bank accounts of BVR had to be assessed in the hands of BVR…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 953/CHNY/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…he only would stand to gain from the transactions of the group even though undisclosed bank accounts were maintained in the name of minor shareholder. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (24 ITR 506) for the submission that regard must be had to the substance of the transaction rather than its mere form. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the additions made on substantive basis, in the hands of MSR was deleted in the first appellate order. This being the case, the deposits in undisclosed bank accounts of BVR had to be assessed in the hands of BVR…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 952/CHNY/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…he only would stand to gain from the transactions of the group even though undisclosed bank accounts were maintained in the name of minor shareholder. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (24 ITR 506) for the submission that regard must be had to the substance of the transaction rather than its mere form. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the additions made on substantive basis, in the hands of MSR was deleted in the first appellate order. This being the case, the deposits in undisclosed bank accounts of BVR had to be assessed in the hands of BVR…

LATE MR.BEZWADA VENKATRAM REDDY (REP BY LEGAL HEIR SMT.B.KAMAKSHI),CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-2011

ITA 951/CHNY/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.951/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.952/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.953/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.954/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.955/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.956/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.957/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. B.Kamakshi Dcit [L/H Of Shri Bezwada Venkatram Central Circle -3(4), Reddy (Deceased)] Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agdpb-3601-R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 234A

…he only would stand to gain from the transactions of the group even though undisclosed bank accounts were maintained in the name of minor shareholder. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs CIT (24 ITR 506) for the submission that regard must be had to the substance of the transaction rather than its mere form. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the additions made on substantive basis, in the hands of MSR was deleted in the first appellate order. This being the case, the deposits in undisclosed bank accounts of BVR had to be assessed in the hands of BVR…

Showing 1–20 of 152 · Page 1 of 8

...
Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT (24 ITR 506) — Cited in 152 Judgments | BharatTax