12. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd.

164 ITR 664High Court1987#8990 most cited
12

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

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 2(24)Section 2(47)

Issues it is cited on

section 143(3)indiabusinesspersoncompanytotal income

Judgments citing 12. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd.

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

…he right to sue/ claims is a capital receipt not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee: (a) CIT vs. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla: [1992] 195 ITR 28 (Bombay) (b) Bharat Forge Co Ltd vs CIT: [1994] 205 ITR 339 (Bombay) (c) CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd.: [1987] 164 ITR 664 (Cal.) (d) Aberdeen-Claims-Administration-Inc-1.[2016] 65 taxmann.com 246 (AAR) (e) Bhojison Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO: [2018] 173 ITD 436 (Ahm Trib) (f) Popular Estate Management v. DCIT: ITA No. 2703/Del/2017 (Ahd) (g) ITO vs. Ganeshsagar Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.: [2022] 135 taxmann.com 313 (Ahm Trib.) (h) Chheda Housing Development Corp…

M J ASSOCIATES,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 785/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…apital in nature. Therefore, it is personal in nature and cannot be brought to tax. Reliance in this regard can be made on following decisions: - M.J. Associates i) CIT vs. hiralal Motilal Mody [1981]131 ITR 421 (Guj.) ii) CIT vs. Asoka Marketing Ltd. [1987] 164 ITR 664 (Cal.) iii) CIT vs. Dhanraj Dugur [1982] 137 ITR 350 (Cal.) 14. Therefore, the compensation received by the appellant firm for entering into the termination agreement is not taxable as the same is in the nature of capital receipt. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are hereby set aside and direct the AO to delete the addition. 15.…

M J ASSOCIATES,PALAKKAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 784/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…apital in nature. Therefore, it is personal in nature and cannot be brought to tax. Reliance in this regard can be made on following decisions: - M.J. Associates i) CIT vs. hiralal Motilal Mody [1981]131 ITR 421 (Guj.) ii) CIT vs. Asoka Marketing Ltd. [1987] 164 ITR 664 (Cal.) iii) CIT vs. Dhanraj Dugur [1982] 137 ITR 350 (Cal.) 14. Therefore, the compensation received by the appellant firm for entering into the termination agreement is not taxable as the same is in the nature of capital receipt. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are hereby set aside and direct the AO to delete the addition. 15.…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DATLA SHANTI, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.33/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Smt. Datla Shanti, Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AJFPD 6650 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri I. Kama Sastry, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue by :…

C.I.T CENTRAL I vs. J. K. INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/268/2005HC Calcutta07 Feb 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 115JSection 260ASection 40A(9)Section 80H

…ting the price. The necessary documents and copies of the Court orders were placed before the Tribunal in the form of a paper book. Furthermore, the Tribunal also took note of the decision of this Court in the case of Ashoke Marketing Limited, reported in 164 ITR 664 and held the assessee was entitled to relief. In the absence of any distinguishing features brought by the revenue before us, we are inclined to uphold the decision of the learned Tribunal, more particularly when the Tribunal was satisfied on facts based on the documents 4 and the copies of the Court orders which were placed before us.…

JAIKISHIN ATALRAM RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1

ITA 6856/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 54Section 54F

…capital assets in that the English company had not erected the plant according to stipulation. The decision was, therefore, rendered upon the particular facts of that case, which are not akin to the facts before us. 12. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. [1987] 164 ITR 664, the Calcutta High Court held upon the facts that there had been no element of cost in the acquisition for which the sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid as liquidated damages under an agreement to purchase property. In CIT v. Dhanraj Dugar [1982] 137ITR 350, the facts before the Calcutta High Court were unusual. The assessee was a broker of immovable prop…

POPULAR ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD.,(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PIONEER TECHNOPARK LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2703/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2703/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Popular Estate Management The Dcit बनाम/ Ltd. Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. (Previously Known As Pioneer Ahmedabad Technopark Ltd.) 81, New York Tower – A Opp. Muktidham Derasar Sg Highway Thaltej Cross Road Ahmedabad -380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 0617 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhiren Shah & Shri Nupur Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Subhas Bain Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Subhas Bain CIT-DR
Section 6Section 68

…sdictional Gujarat High Jurisdictional High Court in the case of (i) Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj.), (ii) CIT vs. Hiralal Manilal Mody 131 ITR 421 (Guj.), (iii) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. 164 ITR 664 (Cal.), (iv) CIT vs. J. Dalmia 149 ITR 215 (Del.) & (v) Satyam Food Specialties (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur [2015] 57 taxmann.com 194. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad “A” Bench in the case of appellant company’s own case rendered the appellate orde…

CHHEDA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 86/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Chheda Housing Addl. Cit-32(1) Development Corporation 2Nd Floor, C-11, Pratyakshkar 109-111, Goyal Shopping Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Centre, Opp. Railway Station, Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaefc1484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram With Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (Ar) Respondent By : Shri H.N. Singh Cit –Dr With Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram with Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (AR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh CIT –DR with Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.DR)
Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 254(1)

…ibunal), (ii) Caddell Weaving Mills Co. (P) Ltd Vs CIT 249 ITR 265(Bombay), (iii) CIT Vs J Dalmia (149 ITR 215 Delhi), (iv) Bharat Forge Co Ltd Vs CIT (205 ITR 339 Bombay), (v) CIT Vs Abbasbhoy A Dehgamwalla (195 ITR 28 Mumbai (vi) CIT Vs Asoka Marketing Ltd (164 ITR 664 Calcutta) (vii) DCIT Vs Ýogen Sinhgwi (ITA No.477/M/2011 dated 01.11.2017) (viii) ACIT Vs Jackie Shroff (2018) 194 TTJ 760 (Mumbai) (ix) CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd (325 ITR 422 SC) (x) CIT Vs Tata services Ltd (122 ITR 594 Bombay) (xi) CIT Vs Vijay Flexible Container (186 ITR 693 Bombay) (xii) K.R. Smith Vs ACIT (268ITR 436 Mad), (xiii) CIT Vs…

SHRI GIRISH P. RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is

ITA 1028/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanshri Girish P. Rupani Acit-23(1) Room No. 122, 1St Floor, Makhija Chambers, 196, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Vs. Pan: Aaapr6723P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54F

…capital assets in that the English company had not erected the plant according to stipulation. The decision was, therefore, rendered upon the particular facts of that case, which are not akin to the facts before us. 12. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. [1987] 164 ITR 664, the Calcutta High Court held upon the facts that there had been no element of cost in the acquisition for which the sum of Rs. 1 lakh was paid as liquidated damages under an agreement to purchase property. In CIT v. Dhanraj Dugar [1982] 137ITR 350, the facts before the Calcutta High Court were unusual. The assessee was a broker of immovable prop…

BHOJISON INFREASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2449/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2449/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, A.R
Section 6

…egra and is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by following the decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court: i. Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 636 (Gujarat) ii. CIT vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. [1986] 164 ITR 664 (Calcutta) ITA No. 2449/Ahd/16 [Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 5 - iii. CIT vs. J. Dalmia [1985] 149 ITR 215 (Delhi) iv. Shri Sekhar G. Patel L/h. of Late Shri Govindbhai C. Patel ITA No. 1997/Ahd/2010 (Ahmedabad – Trib) v. Popular Estate Management Ltd. vs. ITO (AY: 2009-10) ITA No. 212/Ahd/2014 (Ahmedabad – Trib) vi.…

KHODAY ESHWARSA & SONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III
Section 263

…uld ITA No.1117/Bang/2010 & ITA.614/Bang/2010 Page - 8 not be considered as either revenue income or capital gains. Reliance was placed on the following judgments : i) CIT v. Hiralal Manilal Mody [131 ITR 421] (Guj) ii) CIT v. Vishaka Marketing Ltd [(1987) 164 ITR 664] iii) Salgaonkar Mining Industries v. CIT [228 ITR 183] iv) CIT v. Dhanraj Dugar [137 ITR 350] (Cal) v) CIT v. Mrs. Grace Collis & Others [248 ITR 323] (SC) vi) S. Zoraster & Co. V. CIT [322 ITR 35] (Raj) vii ) Travancore Rubber & Tea & Co. Ltd v. CIT [243 ITR 158] (SC) viii) CIT v. D. P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd [273 ITR 1] (SC) ix) Syndicate…

M/S VIKRAM TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 538/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.538/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Vikram Traders, Subramanyapura, Bangalore 560 061 .. Appellant Pan : Aaafv7242B V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -10(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 26.08.2015 Pronounced On : 04.09.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 41(1)

…d under the head income from other sources’ also. Reliance was placed on the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Yogesh Arora (P) Ltd (2009) TIOL-511-ITAT-Bang, and that of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd [(1987) 164 ITR 664]. 06. CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee and the business relationship that partners of the assessee firm had with M/s. PEP, held that the surplus was nothing but business receipt in assessee’s hands. Reasons given by the CIT (A) are summarised hereunder : ITA.538/Bang/2014 Page - 4 (i) Though there was no written agreeme…