Section 161(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.304

Section 161(1) falls under section 161 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 304 (Liability of representative assessee) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 304 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

36 judgments on BharatTax turn on Section 161(1).

Judgments on Section 161(1)

T vs. Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 982/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr

Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

T vs. Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 981/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr

Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

T vs. Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1902/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr

Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

ITO, Chennai vs. Tvs Shriram Growth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1401/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr

Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

ITO, Chennai vs. Tvs Shriram Grwoth Fund, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

ITA 1345/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Percy J. Pardewalla, Sr

Section 10Section 115Section 161(1)Section 164Section 40A(2)(b)

Dr. (Mrs) Anwar Basith, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 495/BANG/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2017AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)-2, Bengaluru

Section 147Section 148Section 160(1)(iv)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 5Section 64Section 64(1)(a)

ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Lewis Family Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 3254/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Income Tax Officer, M/S Lewis Family Trust, 19(1)(1), Mumbai E-563, Norman Haven Dr. Vs. Norman Francis Lewis Chawk, 10Th Road, Khar (W) Mumbai-400052 Pan No.Aaapm7700P Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 162

M/S. Tamil Nadu Urban Development Fund, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2316/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 143(3)Section 61

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

Chief Engineer I D R Irrigatio vs. A C I T and ORS

ITA/173/2003HC Rajasthan10 Jan 2017

Section 160Section 2(7)Section 254Section 254(2)Section 260A

Gupta Family Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 4503/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Miss Shabana Parveen

Section 160Section 160(1)(iv)Section 161Section 161(1)Section 164Section 164(1)Section 166Section 24

ITO WD 19(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Milestone Army Navy Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4067/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4067/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Ito Ward-19(3)(3), Mumbai Vs. M/S Milestone Army Navy Trust, 602, Hallmark Business Plaza, Sant Nyaneshwar Marg, Opp. Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-51 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aactm 0102 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Chandra Vijay ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 28-3-2014, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Wherein The Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Revenue :- (1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Of The Assessee Is Taxable In The Hands Of Contributors & Not In The Hands Of The Aop. (2) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Activities Of The Assessee Are Not Commercial In Nature Even Though The Assessee Has Not Carried Out Any Activity In The Spirit Of Trust. (3) The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.‖

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay

Section 10(35)Section 234BSection 61