Sukhdayal Rambilas v. CIT

136 ITR 414High Court1982#9592 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132ASection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 234B

Judgments citing Sukhdayal Rambilas v. CIT

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

ITA 173/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 250

…dation and deserves to be deleted. In support of the above contentions the reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents:  Mangilal Agarwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2007] 163 Taxman 399 (Rajasthan)  Sukhdayal Rambilas v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 414 (Bom).  Salek Chand Agarwal v. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 426 (All.)  Cosmos Infra Engineering (India) Ltd. V. DCIT [2017] 88 taxmann 761 19. In view of the above, the addition made deserves to be deleted.” 22 Indu Bala Porwal, Udaipur 31. The Ld. AR has vehemently argued that except doubting the documents for unknown reasons, nothing has been brought…

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(1)KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…117/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 EIH Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kol. Page 23 contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs.42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the afore…

DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S EIH LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…apparent is real and the allegation to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- 8 A.Yrs.2011-12 CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the af…

EIH LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIR-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…apparent is real and the allegation to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- 8 A.Yrs.2011-12 CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the af…

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3332/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…s free to issue necessary intimations to their jurisdictional Assessing Officers. Page 35 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 5.9.8 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Sukhdayal Rambilas vs. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 414 (BOM-) held that where the assessee, his wife and sons are shareholders of private limited company, non acceptance of explanation of the source as regards allotment of shares to the wife and major children cannot lead to an addition to assessee's income. When it is contended on behalf of the revenue that the amount kept in fixed deposit, though i…

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3228/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…s free to issue necessary intimations to their jurisdictional Assessing Officers. Page 35 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 5.9.8 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Sukhdayal Rambilas vs. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 414 (BOM-) held that where the assessee, his wife and sons are shareholders of private limited company, non acceptance of explanation of the source as regards allotment of shares to the wife and major children cannot lead to an addition to assessee's income. When it is contended on behalf of the revenue that the amount kept in fixed deposit, though i…

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2288/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…s free to issue necessary intimations to their jurisdictional Assessing Officers. Page 35 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 5.9.8 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Sukhdayal Rambilas vs. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 414 (BOM-) held that where the assessee, his wife and sons are shareholders of private limited company, non acceptance of explanation of the source as regards allotment of shares to the wife and major children cannot lead to an addition to assessee's income. When it is contended on behalf of the revenue that the amount kept in fixed deposit, though i…

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2268/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…s free to issue necessary intimations to their jurisdictional Assessing Officers. Page 35 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 5.9.8 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Sukhdayal Rambilas vs. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 414 (BOM-) held that where the assessee, his wife and sons are shareholders of private limited company, non acceptance of explanation of the source as regards allotment of shares to the wife and major children cannot lead to an addition to assessee's income. When it is contended on behalf of the revenue that the amount kept in fixed deposit, though i…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. EIH LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 348/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…tion that what is apparent is real and the allegation to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the af…

EIH LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 314/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…tion that what is apparent is real and the allegation to prove the contrary is on the person making such allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the af…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. E.I.H. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO

ITA 2182/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.N Bajoria, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, ld.CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

…allegation. The following decisions support our view in this regard:- ITA Nos. 2182/Kol/06, 57, 1876 & 1846/Kol/07, 196 & 299/Kol/2010 DCIT,Cir-8, Kol Vs. M/s. E I H Ltd 18 CIT vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sukhdayal Rambilas vs CIT (1982) 136 ITR 414 Madura Knitting Co vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 764 (Mad) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the judicial precedents thereon, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 42,80,883/- on an estimated basis. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. In view of the af…