State Bank of Travancore v. CIT

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Deloitte & Touche Consulting Inida P. Ltdervice India P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K.Pradhan

…e was made to Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) wherein it was held that income tax is a tax on real income. 25. Finally a reference was made to State Bank of Travancore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) wherein the majority view was that accrual of income must be real, taking into account the actuality of the situation; whether the accrual had taken place or not must, in appropriate cases, be judged on the principles of real income theory. The majority opinion went on to say: “What has really accrued to the assessee has to be found out and…

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

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)

…f entries in the subsequent year does not result in real income/expenses. In support, the assessee relied on the following cases:- ITA 6157/Mum/2012 8 1. CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144,148 (SC) 2. State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC) 3. CIT v. Kerala State Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (1991) (192)- ITR -0001 - 4. CIT v. Bokaro Steels Ltd. [(1999) 2361TR 315,323-24 (SC)], 5. DCIT v. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. 2006-(100)-TTJ -0565 -TBOM / Thus, it was submitted that it was not real income earned by the assessee with respect to the partners capital. The ld. CIT(A) after con…

S. Mansukhlal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4793/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. S. Mansukhlal & Co., The Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Srbc & Associates Llp, Of Income Tax –14(2), V. Chartered Accountants, Earnest House, Iii Floor, 12 Th Floor, The Ruby, Nariman Point, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai – 400 021. Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400 028. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahfs9459A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…nsideration. For a similar conclusion, reference was made to Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) wherein it was held that income tax is a tax on real income. 25. Finally a reference was made to State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102/24 Taxman 337 (SC) wherein the majority view was that accrual of income must be real, taking into account the actuality of the situation; whether the accrual had taken place or not must, in appropriate cases, be judged on the principles of real income theory. The majority opinion went on to say: 'What has really accrued to the assessee has to be…

ACIT Cen Cir 41, Mumbai vs. Solar Packaging P.Tld, Mumbai

…of Rs. 1.2 lakhs on ICD in schedule fee of the balance sheet, that income accrued on ICD of Rs. 25.22 lakhs had not been made part of it.Relying upon the decisions of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation(242 ITR 122), State Bank of Travancore (158 ITR 102) and Kerala Financial Corporation(210ITR129),he held that interest amount of Rs. 25.22 1 3640/Mum/2012(08-09)Solarpackaging lakhs, accrued on ICD, had to be added to the income of the assessee. Invoking the provisions of section 145 (3) of the Act he held that books of accounts, maintained by the assessee, were not reliable. 3.Aggrieved by the…

DCIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Araora & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2003-04 Deupty Commissioner Of Income Kotak Mahendra Capital Co. Ltd Tax ,-3(2), Room No.68,6Th Floor, Bakthwar,1St Floor, 229, Nariman Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai Point, Mumbai-21 Pan Aaack5577D

…position of the assessee. Merely because the assessee has declared it is amount receivable in the course of time, it does not mean that interest on income had in fact accrued to the assessee. As held by Supreme Court in state bank of Travancore’s case, (1986) 158 ITR 102 above referred, only real income is assessable under the act. Though interest due is assessable under the mercantile system, since the interest on the securities involved in this case, was neither received nor receivable during the previous year, such interest cannot be assessed and the tribunal rightly hold so upholding the order of Commissioner…

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

…t accrued for the current year, reflected by an increase in the option price during the year, brought it to tax. Reliance is placed by it on Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC); State Bank of Travancore vs. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 (SC); and CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu [1964] 53 ITR 114 (SC). 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 The issue The issue arising for determination in the present case is whether income has in the given facts and circumstances of the case accrued to the assessee or not? Admittedly, there has been no exercise of put o…

M/S. State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT. Spl. RG. - 27, Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3823-24/Mum/2005 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S.1997-98, 1998-99 वष" State Bank Of India Addl. Cit- Range-2(2) Accounts & Compliance Deptt. Mumbai. Corporate Centre,Madam Cama Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aaacs 8577 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeshwar Yadav Assessee By:Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :02.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench: Challenging The Orders Dated 24.3.2005 & 28.3.2005 The Asssessee Has Filed The Appeals For Above Mentioned Two Ay.S Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal. It Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Of Appeal For The Ay 1997-98.Assessee,A Public Sector Bank Is Engaged In The Business Of Banking.The Details Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Income Etc., For Both The Years Can Be Summarised As Under : A.Y. Roi Filed Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders On Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Of Cit(A) 1997-98 28.11.1997 2086,56,04,580/- 27.03.2000 2433,18,77,427/- 24.3.2005 1998-99 30.11.1998 2816,41,01,920/- 14.02.2001 3558,87,03,620/- 28.3.2005

…ortion of this amount is written off as bad debt. It is a real income and hence has to be taxed as such under the mercantile system followed by the appellant. Reliance in this regard is placed on State Bank of tate Bank of 3823-24/M/05-SBI Travancore vs. CIT 158 ITR 102, 155 (SC) which was Travancore vs. CIT 158 ITR 102, 155 (SC) followed in Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 206 ITR 359 (Bom). ITR 359 (Bom). It was held in this decision that the concept of real income should not be so read as to defeat the provisions of the Act. Extension of the concept of real income to a field so as to negate acc…