T Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite T Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite T Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT (39 ITR 8), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does T Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 147, Section 194C, Section 2(47).

39 ITR 8Supreme Court of India1960#9040 most cited

What is T Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income accrues or arises to an assessee when it becomes due to him, even if it is not actually received. The taxing of income is based on real income, not notional income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd · real income · accrual of income · income not received · taxable income · income tax act · 371 ITR 427 · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 194C Section 2(47)Section 234B Section 249

Issues it is cited on

real income theory total income

Judgments citing T Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT

The Good Shepherd Education Society, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 128/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 249

…e relied on the following judgments: a. CIT v. ShoorjiVallabhdas& Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) b. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) c. Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) d. CIT v. Chamanlal Mangaldas& Co. [1960] 39 ITR 8 (SC) e. CIT v Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. [1960] 39 ITR 1 (SC) f. CIT v Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. [2018] 404 ITR 409 (SC) Page 3 of 4 g. Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) h. CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) 4. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of the learned CIT(A) and submitted that assessee…

Akshay Infrasys Industries Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…selves sufficient to show that the income neither accrued to the assessee firm nor was received by it so as to become assessable. The decision of the Bombay High Court was approved by this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chamanlal Mangaldas& Co. [1960] 39 ITR 8 (SC). In Chamanlal Mangaldas& Co.'s case (supra), the assessee was also the managing agent of a company, and under the agreement was entitled to receive commission at a certain rate. By another agreement, the commission earned by the managing agent for the calendar year 1950 was reduced by Rs. 1 lakh. That agreement took place during the previous ye…

Ndtv Worldwide Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT 18(1), New Delhi

ITA 1180/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmandtv Worldwide Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-18(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccn9121G

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ms Tanya &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep K Mishra &

Section 1Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 3

…en it is based on and backed by any legal or contractual right to receive the amount at a subsequent date. Further judgments in this regards can be noted as CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC), CIT vs. Chamanlal NDTV Worldwide Ltd Mangaldas & Co. 39 ITR 8 (SC), CIT vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd 404 ITR 409 (SC), CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd 236 ITR 315 (SC). 20. In case in hand, taking from 30.09.2013, when agreement was executed, if the purchaser was required to make the payment of Total Consideration, in 60 days then only the advance amount was received and remaining may be considered to be accrued subj…

Jinesh (HUF) vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

ITA/168/2012HC Karnataka22 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 68

…VS. SATE OF KARNATAKA', ILR 2004 KAR 2025, 'NIRMALA L. MEHTA VS. A.BALASUBRIMANIAM CIT', (2004) 269 ITR 1, 'S.R.KOSHTI VS. CIT', (2005) 276 ITR 165, 'CIT VS.SHOORJI VALLABHDAS AND CO.', (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC), 'CIT VS. CHAMANLAL MANGALDAS (1960) 39 ITR 8 (S), 'GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT', (1997) 91 TAXMANN 351 (SC). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal have concurrently upheld the addition made by the Assessing Authority for a sum of Rs.28,35,500/-. It is…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2451/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…t Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 8 (SC) (b) CIT v A. Raman & Company, 67 ITR 11 (SC) (c) CIT v Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd., 159 ITR 71 (SC) (d) Karinos Weave (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT 13 taxmann.com 241(Cochin) (e) ShoorjiVallabhdash& Co 46 ITR 144 (SC) (f) CIT v ChamanlalMangaldas& Co. 39 ITR 8 (SC) (g) CIT v Birla GawaliorLtd 89 ITR 266 (SC) Page 14 of 36 ITA nos.1517 & 2451/AHD/2016 Asstt. Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 (h) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 13.3 The assessee also claimed that the information gathered by the AO from the public domain and used against the assessee for alleging the suppression of the productio…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1517/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…& Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 01-03 2 Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC) 04-11 13 CIT Vs. Chemosyn Ltd 371 ITR 427 (Bom) 75-79 14 Poorna Electric Supply Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 521 (SC) 80-85 17 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. 39 ITR 8 (SC) 101-104 18 CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. 29 ITR 987 (Bom) 105-110 19 CIT Vs. Harivallabhadas Kalidas & Co. 39 ITR 1 (SC) 111-115 28 CIT Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd 404 ITR 409 (SC) 172-184 29 CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 (SC) 185-196 30 Miss Dhun Dadbhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT 63 ITR 651 (SC) 197-200 Date of Judgm…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

Andhra Pradesh State Ploce Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1527/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Laxminiwas Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 43B

…omply with the companies act the Ld.AR argued that there is no real income. Since the expenditure was not claimed there is no case for disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co., [39 ITR 8] (SC). S.A No. 58/Hyd/2018 :- 6 -: 7. On the other hand, Ld.DR argued that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act and following the Mercantile System of accounting. Therefore, the assessee is required to make the payment of dues on or before filing the return of income. In this case, the assessee has failed to make the paymen…

Shorewala Overseas, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 5634/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Repudaman Thakur, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 5

…ce was placed on the following case laws: " E. D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27 " DIT Vs Ericsson Communications Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 395 (Del.) " CIT Vs Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) " CIT Vs Chamanlal Mangaldas and Co. (1960) 39 ITR 8 (Sc) 11. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made in their respective orders. 7 S.A. No. 514/Del/20176 Shorewala Overseas 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present cas…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3867/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e agreement entered into by the assessee firm to secure a long-term managing agency arrangement for the two companies which it had floated.-CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.(1959) 36 ITR 25 (80m) : TC39R.740 affirmed; CIT vs. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co.(1960) 39 ITR 8 (SC) : TC39R.745 applied." In CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd. 2361TR 315 {SC} held as under: "The assessee had shown in its books of accounts a sum of Rs. 7,39,232 as income from interest received from H. Ltd. for the eight locomotives supplied by the assessee-company to had replaced the eight locomotives lent by the assessee- company to it by new ones…

Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Ericsson Communications Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/106/2002HC Delhi04 Sept 2015

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Madan and Mr Zoheb HossainFor Respondent: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr Mayank

Section 195Section 201Section 23Section 260A

…Supreme Court referred to the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. (1956) 29 ITR 987, which was approved by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co. (1960) 39 ITR 8 and held as under: - “.....Income-tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income-tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book- k…