22. In CIT v. Bombay Burinah Trading Corporation

161 ITR 386Supreme Court of India1986#3871 most cited

What is 22. In CIT v. Bombay Burinah Trading Corporation authority for?

Payments received for the sterilization, destruction, or loss of a capital asset are considered capital receipts. This includes compensation for the extinguishment or sterilization of a profit-earning source.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation · 161 ITR 386 · capital receipt · sterilization of asset · destruction of capital asset · loss of capital asset · enduring benefit · section 2(14) · section 2(47) · transfer of capital asset · profit earning source

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 35absection 35abbtest of enduring benefitsection 35aresulting companypptdemergerjdasection 2(47)transfer of capital assetenduring benefitput to use

Judgments citing 22. In CIT v. Bombay Burinah Trading Corporation

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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) Assessee by: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. & Ms. Shaurya Jain, CA Department by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 28.10.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by assessee is against order dated 22.01.20…

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

ITA 1807/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 80T

…a and Pakistan, and, therefore, they ceased to be stock- in-trade and any surplus arising due to exchange ratio in the circumstances was a capital receipt only." Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. [1986] 161 ITR 386 (SC); in an earlier point of time; are extracted as follows (page 401): "It is, therefore, necessary as mentioned hereinbefore to examine whether the acquisition of forest leases by the assessee were acquisition of capital assets. Though, we will refer to some of the decisions to which our attention was drawn and which were referred to by the Hig…

ACIT CENT .CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2396/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th 15Th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8268P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rakesh RanjanFor Respondent: K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar
Section 115JSection 143(2)

…P a g e | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & of Income Tax, CC-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19th 15th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AACCK8268P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Rakesh Ranjan Respondent by : K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar Date of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.12.20…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3, , PUNE vs. ROHAN AND RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,, PUNE

ITA 692/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 28Section 80

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.572/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rohan and Rajdeep Infrastructure, CTS No. 2254, 1 Modibaug, 3rd Floor, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, PUNE – 411 016 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : AAFFR9455F बनाम / V/s. ……""यथ" / Respondent DCIT, Circle - 3, Pune आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.692/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 ……""यथ" / Respondent ACIT, Circle - 3, Pune बनाम / V/s. Rohan and Rajdeep Infrastructure, CTS No.…

ROHAN AND RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

ITA 572/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 28Section 80

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.572/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rohan and Rajdeep Infrastructure, CTS No. 2254, 1 Modibaug, 3rd Floor, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, PUNE – 411 016 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : AAFFR9455F बनाम / V/s. ……""यथ" / Respondent DCIT, Circle - 3, Pune आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.692/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 ……""यथ" / Respondent ACIT, Circle - 3, Pune बनाम / V/s. Rohan and Rajdeep Infrastructure, CTS No.…

VIJESH VITHAL TALAULICAR,PANAJI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 230/PAN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 230/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Vijesh Vithal Talaulicar Shri Ramnath Sadan, Dr. Dada Vaidya Road, Panaji, Goa Pan : Aaxpt9647D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D.E. Robinson, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…while business and the transactions are business transactions or adventure in the nature of trade. 7 Vijesh Vithal Talaulicar Vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Panaji Appellant has quoted the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986). 161 ITR 386 which states that "compensation received for immobilization, sterilization, destruction or / loss, total or partial of a capital asset would be a capital receipt." However , the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. The sale price received by the appellant is for sale of ore rejects dumped on the Dharnbandora plot, it does not…

PAWA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 7 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3829/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pawa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT – 7, C/o Rohit Malik & Associates, CAs New Delhi. 1212A, Chiranjiv Tower, 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PAN : AADCP8734G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT/DR Date of hearing: 09/12/2021 Date of order : 05/01/2022 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner…

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…mined price on which the Mahindra Telecom had to sell its shares to AT&T and such predetermined price has to be worked out at the return of 11% per annum compounded annually. Amount received on sterilization of an asset is always a capital receipt as held in 161 ITR 386 (SC) in CIT vs. Bombay Burma Trading Corp. 14. In the case of Mahindra Telecom, the option price represents the predetermined selling price on which the shares had to be sold by Mahindra Telecom to AT&T or its affiliates, whereas in the case of Dabur, it is not Page 106 of 155 required to sell its shares on the amount of option money received.…

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4710/DEL/2010[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2020AY 1995-96

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

…) 82 ITR 527 (SC); Raja Shri VVRK Yachendra Kumaraja vs. ITO (1971) 82 ITR 527 (SC) b) Compensation received for sterilization, destruction or loss, total or partial, of a capital asset would be a capital receipt. – CIT vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC) c) If payment received is towards compensation for extinction or sterilization partly or fully of profit earning source (capital asset) such receipt not being in ordinary course of business, it must be construed as capital receipt. – CIT vs. Barium Chemical Ltd. (1987) 168 ITR 164 (AP) d) The court held that all inclusive definition of ter…

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…Ltd. decided not to sell land to it and compensated it. It was submitted that compensation is not Interest and relied upon the following case laws: 1. CIT v. Saurashtra Cement 2. S.Zoraster & Co. v. CIT (322 ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (259 ITR 116) 5. CIT Madras v South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (75 ITR 147) 6. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs KIT (TS 467 ITAT 2013) 7. ACIT vs 3i Infotech Ltd.(TD 417 ITAT 2013) 8. CIT & Others Vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. (366 ITR 270) 9. Khanna and Anandham vs. CIT in ITA No.1286/2008, dt. 29.01.2013 5.3.2 Co…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…Ltd. decided not to sell land to it and compensated it. It was submitted that compensation is not Interest and relied upon the following case laws: 1. CIT v. Saurashtra Cement 2. S.Zoraster & Co. v. CIT (322 ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (259 ITR 116) 5. CIT Madras v South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (75 ITR 147) 6. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs KIT (TS 467 ITAT 2013) 7. ACIT vs 3i Infotech Ltd.(TD 417 ITAT 2013) 8. CIT & Others Vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. (366 ITR 270) 9. Khanna and Anandham vs. CIT in ITA No.1286/2008, dt. 29.01.2013 5.3.2 Co…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…Ltd. decided not to sell land to it and compensated it. It was submitted that compensation is not Interest and relied upon the following case laws: 1. CIT v. Saurashtra Cement 2. S.Zoraster & Co. v. CIT (322 ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (259 ITR 116) 5. CIT Madras v South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (75 ITR 147) 6. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs KIT (TS 467 ITAT 2013) 7. ACIT vs 3i Infotech Ltd.(TD 417 ITAT 2013) 8. CIT & Others Vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. (366 ITR 270) 9. Khanna and Anandham vs. CIT in ITA No.1286/2008, dt. 29.01.2013 5.3.2 Co…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…Ltd. decided not to sell land to it and compensated it. It was submitted that compensation is not Interest and relied upon the following case laws: 1. CIT v. Saurashtra Cement 2. S.Zoraster & Co. v. CIT (322 ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (259 ITR 116) 5. CIT Madras v South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (75 ITR 147) 6. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs KIT (TS 467 ITAT 2013) 7. ACIT vs 3i Infotech Ltd.(TD 417 ITAT 2013) 8. CIT & Others Vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. (366 ITR 270) 9. Khanna and Anandham vs. CIT in ITA No.1286/2008, dt. 29.01.2013 5.3.2 Co…

M/S HIMUDA,SHIMLA vs. ACIT, SHIMLA

The appeals are hereby dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 971/CHANDI/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Sinha
Section 10Section 263Section 3(31)

…oes not have any control. These are unforeseen capital receipts which are non recurring in nature and the colony occupiers have a direct interest in the same and the receipts are to be used for their benefit itself. b) The case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. 161 ITR 386 which has been cited has wrongly been interpreted and the ratio of the other case cited i.e. 216 ITR 321 is not squarely applicable to the Housing Board/Authority. 3. These appeals have been filed on 09/08/2017 and dismissed due to non representation on the date of the hearing. The same have been recalled on 29/10/2018 and hence the present hear…

M/S HIMUDA,SHIMLA vs. ACIT, SHIMLA

The appeals are hereby dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 482/CHANDI/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Sinha
Section 10Section 263Section 3(31)

…oes not have any control. These are unforeseen capital receipts which are non recurring in nature and the colony occupiers have a direct interest in the same and the receipts are to be used for their benefit itself. b) The case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. 161 ITR 386 which has been cited has wrongly been interpreted and the ratio of the other case cited i.e. 216 ITR 321 is not squarely applicable to the Housing Board/Authority. 3. These appeals have been filed on 09/08/2017 and dismissed due to non representation on the date of the hearing. The same have been recalled on 29/10/2018 and hence the present hear…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. CHITTRANJAN DUA, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5884/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…9. Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadel…

MR. CHITTRANJAN DUA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…9. Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadel…

M/S. TATA MOTORS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT SPL. RG. - 2, MUMBAI

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7148/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 1998-1999
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri-Anand Mohan-CIT-DR
Section 254(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ ई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,, "याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA/6214/M/2003: िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1997-98 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष…

TATA MOTORS LTD vs. DCIT RG - 2(1),

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 6214/MUM/2003[1997 - 98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri-Anand Mohan-CIT-DR
Section 254(1)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ “ “ “ ई” ” ” ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, , , , सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,, "याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA/6214/M/2003: िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1997-98 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD

ITA/167/2003HC Delhi21 Dec 2015
Section 260A

…cellation of the agency agreement is normally a capital receipt. This test was followed in Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 236 ITR 903 (SC). 28. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC) the Respondent took a forest lease from the Government of Burma. At the relevant time the company held about 15 forest leases for a period of 15 years each. With the commencement of the Second World War, the Government extended the lease for indefinite periods to enable its renewal. On 4th January 1948 the Government of Burma came into…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

22. In CIT v. Bombay Burinah Trading Corporation (161 ITR 386) — Cited in 30 Judgments | BharatTax