NANDLAL DULICHAND GUPTA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 926/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 December 2022AY 2015-162 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the compensation received for withdrawal of a suit is a capital receipt and not taxable as income from other sources. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee received compensation of Rs. 1.8 Cr for withdrawing a suit. The CIT(A) assessed this compensation as taxable income under the head 'Income from other sources'. The assessee argued it was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.

What were the issues?

Whether compensation received for withdrawal of a suit is a capital receipt or taxable income. Whether the CIT(A) correctly classified the receipt under 'Income from other sources'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(24)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 19.10.2022Pronounced: 23.12.2022

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.

1.

These assessee’s twin appeals, for assessment year 2015- 16, arise against the CIT(A)-6, Pune's separate orders, both dated 28.03.2019, passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-6/DCIT Cir-8/10129/ 2018-19 and case no.PN/CIT(A)-6/DCIT Cir-8/10228/2017-18, in proceedings u/s.143(3) and sec.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], respectively.

2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

3.

We note that the assessee’s main appeal ITA.No.927/PUN./2019 raises the following substantive grounds :

2 ITA.Nos.926 & 927/PUN./2019 Shri Nandlal Dulichand Gupta, Pune. “Ground 1 :

1.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in assessing that the compensation received of Rs.1.8 Cr for withdrawal of suit as income taxable under the head" Income from other sources" instead of capital receipt not chargeable to tax.

1.2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by-passing the fundamental condition of demonstrating that the receipt is income as per section 2(24) of the Act.

2.

Ground 2 :

2.1. Without prejudice to the aforesaid ground, if it held that the income is chargeable under the head Capital Gains, the computation mechanism fails, hence cannot be held taxable.

2.2. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts by concluding that the due date for filing of return in the case of the Appellant was 31 July 2014. The appellant is subject to the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, hence the due date for filing of the return was 30 November 2014. The CBDT The CBDT vide order under section 119 of the Act dated 26 September 2014 extended

More judgments on Section 2(24)

All 355 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(24) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →