THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SOUTHERS BOTTLERS PVT.LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/10/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01056435200110 February 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The court granted liberty to revive the appeal if the tax effect exceeded the prescribed limit.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order holding that a receipt of Rs. 3 crores for surrendering tenancy rights was a capital receipt and not taxable. The Revenue questioned if this receipt was casual and thus taxable under Section 10(3).

What were the issues?

Whether a receipt for surrendering tenancy rights is a capital receipt or a casual receipt exigible to tax.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 10(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 10-2001 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 405 ITA No. 10-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.2.2020 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala .....Appellant Versus M/s Sourthern Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN *** Present : Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing counsel for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act-1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh passed in ITA No. 528/Chandi/98 and 551/Chandi/98 on 19.4.2000 for the assessment year :1994-95 claiming following questions of law :- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the receipt of Rs. 3 crores for surrendering the tenancy rights is a capital receipt and hence it is not exigible to tax particularly when such receipt is casual in nature and is accordingly liable to tax in view of the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ?” 2. Counsel for the appellant states that he has not been able to ascertain about the tax effect. Learned counsel for the respondent states that tax effect is below that mentioned in the Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended ANURADHA 2020.02.13 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA No. 10-2001 (O&M) 2 vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019 3. In the circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed with liberty to the appellant to revive the same if the tax effect is higher than the limit prescribed in the said circular. 4. Since the main case has been decided, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)

JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 10.2.2020 anuradha

Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No Whether reportable - Yes/No ANURADHA 2020.02.13 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 10(3)

All 56 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →