Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT (236 ITR 23)

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…led with the property in any manner it would no way affect the title of the trust to the said property. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the law on the point as set out in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 23/ 103 Taxman 363, the relevant portion reads as under:- "It will be useful at this juncture to refer to the following passage from Tudor on Charities (6th Edn.). At page 131, it is stated as follows: "When a charity has been founded and trusts have been declared the founder has no power to revoke, vary or add to the trusts. This is so irrespective…

SHENHZHEN SDG INFORMATION CO. LTD.,DELHI vs. CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(2), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

…rt to review it and not perpetuate the mistake i.e. a vital point was not considered or when an relevant statutory provision had not been brought to the notice of the court. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Sri Agasthayar Trust Vs. CIT (236 ITR 23). Therefore, this is a well settled position that an erroneous order does not set any binding precedence. In view of the above, the court cases cited will not be helpful. 11.7 Scope of taxation under section 44BBB of the Act. Section 44BBB of the Act is a special provision for computing profits and gains of foreign companies engaged in the busines…

DEVGEM SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2225/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…lusion would not have changed because the rate of interest prevailing in India was higher than such rate of interest prevailing in Singapore. 12. In this regard, your attention is invited to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT 236 ITR 23 (see pages 171 to 177 of Case Law Paperbook 2), wherein the Apex Court in its earlier order m East India Industries (Madras) (P) ltd. v. CIT 64 ITR 611 which was a case of a donor to the trust, based on amendment to the object of the Trust, had held that it is not charitable as one of the amended object vas not charitable. In the subsequent. proce…

DEVGEN SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-17(1) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 187/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…lusion would not have changed because the rate of interest prevailing in India was higher than such rate of interest prevailing in Singapore. 12. In this regard, your attention is invited to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT 236 ITR 23 (see pages 171 to 177 of Case Law Paperbook 2), wherein the Apex Court in its earlier order m East India Industries (Madras) (P) ltd. v. CIT 64 ITR 611 which was a case of a donor to the trust, based on amendment to the object of the Trust, had held that it is not charitable as one of the amended object vas not charitable. In the subsequent. proce…

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. SUMER BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan

Section 36(1)(iii)

…iew it and not perpetuate the mistake i.e. A vital point was not considered or when an earlier relevant statutory provision has not been brought to the notice of Court. [Union on India & Anr. Vs Reghubir Singh (SC) 178 ITR 548, Sri Agasthyar Trust Vs CIT (SC) 236 ITR 23].  To perpetuate an error in no heroism [Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs Union of India &ors. (SC) 155 ITR 120]. To justify that the income in dispute (unaccounted income brought out by a search under section 132, which at the primary stage itself is not a ‘mistaken belief’ eventhough this is countered by assessee with the argument that the clai…

SUMER BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan

Section 36(1)(iii)

…iew it and not perpetuate the mistake i.e. A vital point was not considered or when an earlier relevant statutory provision has not been brought to the notice of Court. [Union on India & Anr. Vs Reghubir Singh (SC) 178 ITR 548, Sri Agasthyar Trust Vs CIT (SC) 236 ITR 23].  To perpetuate an error in no heroism [Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs Union of India &ors. (SC) 155 ITR 120]. To justify that the income in dispute (unaccounted income brought out by a search under section 132, which at the primary stage itself is not a ‘mistaken belief’ eventhough this is countered by assessee with the argument that the clai…

ACIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…seek its’ consent on a subsequent change in tenancy, which is not the case. In fact, such a course is stated as impermissible in law (refer para 8.3). The said order/s, in light of the foregoing, is not liable to be followed (Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 23 (SC); Raghubir Singh (Decd) v. Union of India [1989] 178 ITR 548 (SC); Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd. v. UoI [1985] 155 ITR 120 (SC); CIT v. Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 477. [ [[Discussion 8.5 We have already clarified of the detailed arguments and deliberations by the Tribunal in Vinod V. Chhapia (supra), also noting its’ findings (para 8.3…

PRAVIN KUMAR HETAMSARIA vs. ACIT, CIR-3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 314/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…review it and not perpetuate the mistake i.e. a vital point was not considered or when an earlier relevant statutory provision had not been brought to the notice of Court [Union of India & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh (SC) 178 ITR 548, Sri Agasthyar Trust vs. CIT 236 ITR 23] To perpetuate an error is no heroism [Distributors (Boaroda) P Ltd. Vs Union of India & ors. (SC) 155 ITR 120] ITA No.314/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Pravin Kr. Hetasmsaria Vs. ACIT, Cir-3 Asl. Page 4 Tribunal need not blindly follow earlier decision of it if it did not reflect the correct position of law [CIT vs. Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. (Mad) 321 ITR 477]’…

Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT

Sections most often in play

Judgments citing Sri Agasthyar Trust v. CIT