T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. v. CIT

37 ITR 26High Court1959#9957 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(34)Section 115JBSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 1962Section 240Section 264

Judgments citing T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. v. CIT

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…e parties did subsequent to that year would have no bearing on the liability to tax as deemed income of the year under consideration. Reliance was placed by the Tribunal on the Madras High Court decision in the case of TV Sundaram lyengar and Sons Ltd vs. CIT 37 ITR 26, while upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 15.8 Before the Madras High Court, on behalf of the assessee, attention was drawn to the Business Sale Agreement, and in particular, covenant No. 14 dealing with indemnities for other losses and covenant No. 15 dealing with retention sum for indemnities. The attention of the Court was also drawn…

DR. DILIP S. DOCTOR,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1701/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member IT(SS)A 414/Ahd/2017 & ITA 1701/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year 2010-11 Dr. Dilip S. Doctor, The Dy. CIT, C/o Vijay N. Tewar & CC-2, Co., 315-16, Panorama Vs Baroda Complex, Opp. Welcome (Respondent) Hotel, R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390007 PAN: AUIPD5076D (Appellant) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-D.R. & Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 08-12-2022 Date of pronouncement : 12-12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYA…

M/S. R.C. NARULA & SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1028/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 48

…bearing on the liability to tax in respect of that year. If it subsequently happens that the money is not actually received, that would be a capital loss arising in the year when the money became irrecoverable - T.V. Sundaram Iyengar A Sons Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 26 (Mad.). There are different shades of meaning of the word 'transfer', viz, to make over possession of to another', a delivery of title or property from one person to another, to displace from one surface to another, removal, displace. Definition of 'transfer' in section 2(47) is an inclusive one and does not exclude the contextual or the ordinary…

MANOJ KUMAR MULASI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 378/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.378/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. D. Kumudha, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.378/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Manoj Kumar Mulasi, The Deputy Commissioner of 2102 Platina Apartment, v. Income Tax, Mount Poonamallee Road, Corporate Circle – 1(1), Near – Saravana Store, Porur, Chennai. Chennai - 600 116. PAN : AKUPM 9361 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appe…

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1111/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

…itions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus. 4. The order of the AO is full of clairvoyance of reasoning coupled with suspicion, surmises and conjectures and such assessment is ab-initio void and nullity ( see 37 ITR 26 ITR 736 & 775 SC 37 ITR 151 and 37 ITR 288 SC) 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions without making any sort of enquiry, human probability and discretion in regard to ITA Nos.1106 to 1111/Mds/2017 3 introduction of capital, unsecured Ioans,Iow drawings, alleged investments without any basis 6. The learned CIT erred in abdicating…

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1110/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

…itions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus. 4. The order of the AO is full of clairvoyance of reasoning coupled with suspicion, surmises and conjectures and such assessment is ab-initio void and nullity ( see 37 ITR 26 ITR 736 & 775 SC 37 ITR 151 and 37 ITR 288 SC) 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions without making any sort of enquiry, human probability and discretion in regard to ITA Nos.1106 to 1111/Mds/2017 3 introduction of capital, unsecured Ioans,Iow drawings, alleged investments without any basis 6. The learned CIT erred in abdicating…

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1109/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

…itions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus. 4. The order of the AO is full of clairvoyance of reasoning coupled with suspicion, surmises and conjectures and such assessment is ab-initio void and nullity ( see 37 ITR 26 ITR 736 & 775 SC 37 ITR 151 and 37 ITR 288 SC) 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions without making any sort of enquiry, human probability and discretion in regard to ITA Nos.1106 to 1111/Mds/2017 3 introduction of capital, unsecured Ioans,Iow drawings, alleged investments without any basis 6. The learned CIT erred in abdicating…

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1108/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

…itions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus. 4. The order of the AO is full of clairvoyance of reasoning coupled with suspicion, surmises and conjectures and such assessment is ab-initio void and nullity ( see 37 ITR 26 ITR 736 & 775 SC 37 ITR 151 and 37 ITR 288 SC) 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions without making any sort of enquiry, human probability and discretion in regard to ITA Nos.1106 to 1111/Mds/2017 3 introduction of capital, unsecured Ioans,Iow drawings, alleged investments without any basis 6. The learned CIT erred in abdicating…

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1107/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

…itions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus. 4. The order of the AO is full of clairvoyance of reasoning coupled with suspicion, surmises and conjectures and such assessment is ab-initio void and nullity ( see 37 ITR 26 ITR 736 & 775 SC 37 ITR 151 and 37 ITR 288 SC) 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions without making any sort of enquiry, human probability and discretion in regard to ITA Nos.1106 to 1111/Mds/2017 3 introduction of capital, unsecured Ioans,Iow drawings, alleged investments without any basis 6. The learned CIT erred in abdicating…

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

…itions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus. 4. The order of the AO is full of clairvoyance of reasoning coupled with suspicion, surmises and conjectures and such assessment is ab-initio void and nullity ( see 37 ITR 26 ITR 736 & 775 SC 37 ITR 151 and 37 ITR 288 SC) 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions without making any sort of enquiry, human probability and discretion in regard to ITA Nos.1106 to 1111/Mds/2017 3 introduction of capital, unsecured Ioans,Iow drawings, alleged investments without any basis 6. The learned CIT erred in abdicating…

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1085/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 42(2)Section 42(2)(b)

…the assessment year 2006-07 as the related asset was transferred in the period relevant to the assessment year 2006-07. In support of this stand, he relied upon Hon’ble Madras High Court’s judgment in the case of T V Sunderam Iyengar & Sons Ltd Vs CIT [(1959) 37 ITR 26)]. He was, therefore, of the opinion that “the consideration received in assessment year 2010-11 cannot be taxed as capital gains in the assessment year 2010-11”. He thus declined to interfere in the matter. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal: Based on the facts and circumstances of…