Tulsidas Kilachand v. CIT

42 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1961#17969 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234B Section 250 Section 254 Section 27(i)(1)Section 49 Section 5 Section 50(2)

Judgments citing Tulsidas Kilachand v. CIT

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 234BSection 250Section 49Section 50(2)Section 50C

…able to tax in the hands of assessee. According to him it is chargeable to tax in the hands of husband of the assessee. For this proposition, he relied Page 6 of 11 upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsidas Kilachand v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 1 (SC), ITO Vs. Ch.Atchaiah (1996) 2018 ITR 239 (SC), Sevantilal Maneklal Sheth v CIT (1968) 68 ITR 503 (SC). In view of this, he submits that the assessment of the alleged capital gain arising on the sale of the properties by the appellant in assessee’s hands is without jurisdiction in view of the above provisions. He also extensively referred to the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA)

ITA/144/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

…upport, he places reliance on the following judgments: i. Commissioner of Income Tax v. F.C.S. International Marketing P. Ltd., 2005 SCC OnLine P&H 1317 ii. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 969:(2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del); and iii. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 270. 16. Lastly, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the revenue has been accepting the Lease Agreement for the Asaf Ali Road property right since 1981 and has not invoked the provisions of Section 13(2)(b) read with Sectio…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. HAMDRD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA)

ITA/115/2021HC Delhi16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 11Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

ITA 4789/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 161Section 161(1)Section 61

…T(A) that the trust was invalid as the initial corpus of Rs. 500/- was transferred to the account of trustee after the creation of Trust is incorrect. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tulsidas Kilachand v. CIT[1961] 42 ITR 1 as well as the decision in the case of Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain v. CIT[1991] 190 ITR 1/56 Taxman 40 (SC). Thus, it was the contention of the assessee that all the legal requirements for creation of a valid trust has been fulfilled and the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) to hold the trust to be an invalid trust is not sustainable in law and the…

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIZATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 14I, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…y the CIT(A) that the trust was invalid as the initial corpus of `500/- was transferred to the account of trustee after the creation of Trust is incorrect. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tulsidas Kilachand vs. CIT 42 ITR 1, 6 (SC) as well as the decision in the case of Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT 190 ITR 1 (SC). Thus, it was 6.5.3 Besides the legal requirements, the assessee also put forth the following arguments: (i) When the parties have understood and interpreted the transaction in a particular way, it is not open to the AO to give another interpretation. Re…