Smt. Padmawati Jaikrishna v. Addl. CIT

177 ITR 275Supreme Court of India1989#23180 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Judgments citing Smt. Padmawati Jaikrishna v. Addl. CIT

Manish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Late Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR

Section 160Section 160(1)(i)Section 161(1)Section 163Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54F

…m in his representative capacity. Tax is levied and recovered from the representative assessee in like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person represented by him. Kindly see Arundhati Balkrishna vs CIT (1989) 177 ITR 275 (SC). c) A representative assessee cannot be assessed in his Individual capacity in respect of the income of the person represented by him. Where the Trust deed has authorized the trustee(s) to do business as a proprietor or as a partner of a firm and such trustee(s) becomes / become partner in a firm in his / their representative capacity, asse…

Sh. Dharam Pal Aggarwal, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250(6)Section 57

…Accordingly the disallowance of Rs. 15,44,043 made by the A.O. under section 57 of the Act was upheld. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Smt. Padmawati Jaikrishna Vs. Addl. CIT 166 ITR 176 (SC) • Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna Vs. CIT, Ahmedabad. 177 ITR 275 (SC) • Vijay Laxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 191 ITR 647 (SC) • Karnataka Forest Plantations Corpn. Ltd. 156 ITR 275 (Karnataka HC) • CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) • Smt. Virmati Ramakrishan Vs. CIT 131ITR 659 (Guj. HC) 8. Now the assessee is in appeal. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made befor…

The ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Raeva Parikh Trust, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2346/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 54

…urt in the case of Mrs. Amy F. Cama [Trustee of Late M.R. Adenwalla V/s. CIT 237 ITR 82] and several authorities mentioned in the written submission dated 01-06-2016 from Para No. 1 to 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna V/s. CIT 177 ITR 275 affirmed the Gujarat High Court decision and Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Smt. Veenaben Vadilal 197 ITR 156 laid down the same principle. 6.8 Similarly since the trustee is to be assessed in the like manner and to the same extent the income of the trustee is to be computed after granting permissible deduction. In the prese…