Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber

157 ITR 77Supreme Court of India1986#2531 most cited

What is Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that courts must look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction to discover the true state of affairs, especially when ingenuity is used to avoid tax and welfare legislations.

46

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

Also referred to as

Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. · 157 ITR 77 · SC 1986 · substance over form · tax avoidance · look behind the smoke screen · true state of affairs · section 271(1)(c) · section 54F · court's duty · income tax evasion

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. NIRANJAN KOIRALA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2253/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 54F

…h include Twinstar Holdings Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2003) 260 ITR; R.Krishnamurthy Vs. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 623(Mad); Bhagat Construction Co.(P) Ltd Vs. CIT(2001) 250 /TR 291 (Delhi;, Workmen of Association Rubber Industry Ltd. Vs. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 77 (SC;, Mittal Belting and Machinery Stores Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 341 (P&H), Avasasala Automation Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2004) 266 ITR 178 (Kar.). 2.6 A show cause letter was issued to the assessee on 21.10.2008 asking him to explain as to why the claim of deduction u/s 54F may not be rejected. Assessee has filed his reply on 3.11.2008. The reply of the as…

BARMINCO INDIAN UNDERGROUND MINING SERVICES LLP,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2253/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 54F

…h include Twinstar Holdings Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2003) 260 ITR; R.Krishnamurthy Vs. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 623(Mad); Bhagat Construction Co.(P) Ltd Vs. CIT(2001) 250 /TR 291 (Delhi;, Workmen of Association Rubber Industry Ltd. Vs. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 77 (SC;, Mittal Belting and Machinery Stores Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 341 (P&H), Avasasala Automation Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2004) 266 ITR 178 (Kar.). 2.6 A show cause letter was issued to the assessee on 21.10.2008 asking him to explain as to why the claim of deduction u/s 54F may not be rejected. Assessee has filed his reply on 3.11.2008. The reply of the as…

SHRI RAMSANGBHAI BACHUBHAI SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Income-Tax Officer, 299, Rajput Vas, Darbar Vas, Vs Ward 7(3), Rethal, Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad Dist. Ahmedabad- 382210 Pan : Bwgps 3056 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…The name given to a transaction by the parties concerned does not necessarily decide the nature of the transaction, the question always is what is the real character of the transaction and not what parties call it." Workmen vs. Associated Rubber Industries - 157 ITR 77 (SC): "It is duty of the Court in every case where ingenuity is expressed to avoid taxing and welfare legislation to get behind the smoke screen and discover the true state of affairs." In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in various case laws (supra) and the facts of the case, I am convinced with the findings of AO and don't intend t…

Showing 120 of 46 · Page 1 of 3