Sl.No OTHER CASE LAWS Page No 11 Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT

149 ITR 276High Court1984#8771 most cited

What is Sl.No OTHER CASE LAWS Page No 11 Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT authority for?

Taxing authorities cannot rewrite the terms of an agreement to impose a tax levy if the transaction between parties was at arm's length and there was no collusion. The commercial expediency of a contract is to be determined by the contracting parties themselves.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT · 149 ITR 276 · taxing authorities · rewrite agreement · arm's length transaction · collusion · commercial expediency · contract terms

Judgments citing Sl.No OTHER CASE LAWS Page No 11 Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT

M/S Bellary Iron-Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

ITA 15/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…sort to any attempt to rewrite the agreement with a view to impose the levy of tax shall be when the transaction between the parties are at arm’s length For this proposition we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.S. Bist & Sons (149 ITR 276), wherein held that “The Act does not clothe the taxing authorities that any power or jurisdiction rewrite terms of agreement entered into, particularly in view of the finding of the Tribunal that “there is nothing to suggest the parties were not belong with each other at arm’s length and there is no situation of any collusion, commercial expedie…

M/S Bellary Iron-Ores Pvt Ltd, Bellary vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Hospet

ITA 1540/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…sort to any attempt to rewrite the agreement with a view to impose the levy of tax shall be when the transaction between the parties are at arm’s length For this proposition we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.S. Bist & Sons (149 ITR 276), wherein held that “The Act does not clothe the taxing authorities that any power or jurisdiction rewrite terms of agreement entered into, particularly in view of the finding of the Tribunal that “there is nothing to suggest the parties were not belong with each other at arm’s length and there is no situation of any collusion, commercial expedie…

Bsr Infratech India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 697/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 199Section 234ASection 270ASection 43Section 43C

…view to impose the levy of tax shall be when the transaction between the parties are at arm’s length. BSR Infratech India Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 38 For this proposition we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.S. Bist & Sons (149 ITR 276), wherein held that “The Act does not clothe the taxing authorities that any power or jurisdiction rewrite terms of agreement entered into, particularly in view of the finding of the Tribunal that “there is nothing to suggest the parties were not belong with each other at arm’s length and there is no situation of any collusion, commercial expedie…

Dy.C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Raipur

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

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…Revenue cannot resort to any attempt to rewrite the agreement with a view to imposing the levy of tax especially when the transactions between the parties are at arms length. This has been made clear by the Delhi High Court in D.S. Bist & Sons vs. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 276 (Del) : TC14R.573 therein it was observed that “ the Act does not clothe the taxing authority with any power or jurisdiction to rewrite the terms of agreement entered into, particularly in view of the finding of the Tribunal that there is nothing to suggest that the parties were not dealing with each other at arms length and there is no suggestio…

I.T.O. Ward -1(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Cmdc Icpl Coal Ltd, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Ito, Ward- 1(1), Cmdc Icpl Coal Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Rajbandha Maidan, G. E. Road, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Laskar, DR

…Revenue cannot resort to any attempt to rewrite the agreement with a view to imposing the levy of tax especially when the transactions between the parties are at arms length. This has been made clear by the Delhi High Court in D.S. Bist & Sons vs. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 276 (Del) : TC14R.573 therein it was observed that" the Act does not clothe the taxing authority with any power or jurisdiction to rewrite the terms of agreement entered into, particularly in view of the finding of the Tribunal that there is nothing to suggest that the parties were not dealing with each other at arms length and there is no suggestion…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…of Income-Tax Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 409(SC), a Two Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with Sl.No OTHER CASE LAWS Page No 11 Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. CIT 378 ITR 640 (SC) 64-70 12 D.S. Bist & Sons Vs. CIT 149 ITR 276 (Del) 71-74 37 PCIT Vs. IDMC Ltd. 393 ITR 441 (Guj) 227-233 47 UOI Vs.Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr 263 ITR 706 (SC) 284-312 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…of Income-Tax Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 409(SC), a Two Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with Sl.No OTHER CASE LAWS Page No 11 Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. CIT 378 ITR 640 (SC) 64-70 12 D.S. Bist & Sons Vs. CIT 149 ITR 276 (Del) 71-74 37 PCIT Vs. IDMC Ltd. 393 ITR 441 (Guj) 227-233 47 UOI Vs.Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr 263 ITR 706 (SC) 284-312 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery…

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Kpmg, Mumbai

In the result the cross objection filed by assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2493/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Jason. P. Boaz & Shri Pawan Singhdcit -3 (1), M/S Kpmg Room No. 136, 1St Floor, C/O Kpmg House, Scindia House, N.M. Road, Kamala Mills Compound, 448, Vs. Ballard Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400038 Parel Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaafk1415H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “L”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON. P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT -3 (1), M/s KPMG Room No. 136, 1st Floor, C/o KPMG House, Scindia House, N.M. Road, Kamala Mills Compound, 448, Vs. Ballard Estate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Mumbai-400038 Parel Mumbai-400013 PAN: AAAFK1415H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.97/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year- 2001-02) M/s KPMG DCIT -3 (1), Room No. 136, 1st Floor, C/o KPMG House, Kamala Mills Compound, 448, Scindia House, N.M. Road, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Ballard Estate, Parel Mumbai-4000…

Kp Sanghvi Infrastructure P.Ltd( Formelry Knwon As Somnath Project Organizers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(2)2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6157/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6157/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) K.P. Sanghvi Infrastructures Income Tax Officer – Ward बनाम/ Private Limited, – 5(2)(2), V. (Formerly Known As Somnath 5 Th Floor, Project Organizers Private Aayakar Bhavan, Limited) M.K. Road, 1301, Prasad Chambers, Mumbai 400 020. Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafcs5184H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)

…The ld. Counsel relied on the following cases:- 1. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. V. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC)/ CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC). 2. Alison Singh & Co. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 458 (All) HC 3. D.S. Bist & Sons v. CIT [1984] 149 ITR 276 (Del) HC 4. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. V. Jain Studios Ltd. [2006] 2 SCC 628 5. CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) It is submitted that no interest has been received or realised by the assessee till date hence it cannot be brought to tax. It is submitted that partnership deed has reversed the entry in the immediately succeeding…

Aktiebolaget Electrolux Sweden, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG I, Mumbai

ITA 7628/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Parthasarathy Choudhuryअपील सं/.Ita No.7628/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2006-07 अपील सं/.Ita No.8695/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Aktiebolaget Electrolux Sweden Income Tax Officer-1(3) C/O. Srbc & Associates14Th Floor, Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor Vs The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Murbad Road, Kalyan Dadar (W),Mumbai-400 028. Mumbai. Pan: Aadca 9239 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri K. Krishna Murty सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2015 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dt. 06/09/2012 & 27/09/2009 Of Drp-I, Mumbai, The Assessee, Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal For The Above Mentioned Two Orders Respectively:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri K. Krishna Murty
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234bSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessment for next AY.was completed,that he was aware of all the above facts,that even then he ignored the facts and made addition for the AY.under consideration.The AR placed Reliance on the decisions of Premier Automobiles(264 ITR 193),D.S.Bist & Sons(149 ITR 276), Braithwaite & Co.(India) Ltd.(111 ITR 542),Salitho Ores Ltd.(344 ITR161),Oberoi Hotels(P)Ltd.(334ITR293). 2.4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The basic issues to be decided are whether the transaction entered in to by the assessee in transferring the shares to VND for USD 9 and USD 1 was bonafide and as a…

M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

C.A. No.-010547-010548 - 2011Supreme Court15 Oct 2015
Section 35ASection 37

…cting parties as to its terms.’ 34. The issue, looked at from any angle, would lead to the conclusion that Question No. 3 is required to be answered in the negative, in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. We do so accordingly. 11 [1984] 149 ITR 276 (Delhi) 14 Page 15 JUDGMENT Question No. 2 is left open for consideration in an appropriate case. 35. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. ...…………………….J (Madan B. Lokur) ...…………………….J (S.A. Bobde) New Delhi; October 15, 2015 15…

M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

C.A. No.-010547-010548 - 2011Supreme Court15 Oct 2015
Section 35ASection 37

…cting parties as to its terms.’ 34. The issue, looked at from any angle, would lead to the conclusion that Question No. 3 is required to be answered in the negative, in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. We do so accordingly. 11 [1984] 149 ITR 276 (Delhi) 14 Page 15 JUDGMENT Question No. 2 is left open for consideration in an appropriate case. 35. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. ...…………………….J (Madan B. Lokur) ...…………………….J (S.A. Bobde) New Delhi; October 15, 2015 15…

Sl.No OTHER CASE LAWS Page No 11 Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT (149 ITR 276) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax