Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

158 ITR 636High Court1986#6554 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)transfer of capital asset section 2(14)section 144a right to receive section 21 section 48 section 45 section 54 section 22 section 148a(d)erroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT

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

…d, whereby the assessee gave up on his claim/right to sue was not assessable as capital gains and was in effect a capital receipt. i. Similar view has been adopted by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT: [1986] 158 ITR 636 11 (Guj) wherein it was held that -the right to sue for damages is not an actionable claim, which is incapable of being transferred. Thus, any sum received by the assessee by way of compensation does not qualify as 'consideration in lieu of a transfer'. Resultantly, such compensation would not be amenable to tax under the head of capital gains an…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAMESH RAVJI CHHEDA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 968/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

…aning of s.45 r/w s.\n2(47). Since there could not be any transfer in the instant case, it\nhas to be held that the amount of Rs.1,02,500 received by the\nassessee as damages was not assessable as capital gains\"\n2. Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. V/s. C.I.T [158 ITR 636]\n(Guj.)\nFacts: Seller company contracted to sell a second hand mill to\ntaxpayer for agreed consideration. In breach of contract, seller\n20\nITA No.968/Mum/2025 and others\nRamesh Ravji Chheda and others\ncompany sold the mill to third party. Taxpayer received\ncompensation from seller in settlement of claims of the taxpayer\nfor breach of the…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHENDRA RAVJI CHHEDA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 1001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

…aning of s.45 r/w s.\n2(47). Since there could not be any transfer in the instant case, it\nhas to be held that the amount of Rs.1,02,500 received by the\nassessee as damages was not assessable as capital gains\"\n2. Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. V/s. C.I.T [158 ITR 636]\n(Guj.)\nFacts: Seller company contracted to sell a second hand mill to\ntaxpayer for agreed consideration. In breach of contract, seller\ncompany sold the mill to third party. Taxpayer received\ncompensation from seller in settlement of claims of the taxpayer\nfor breach of the contract which was claimed as non-chargeable\ncapital receipt.\nHel…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RASIK KUNVERJI CHHEDA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

VIRENDRA BHAVANJI GALA,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 263

…meaning of s. 45 r/w s. 2(47). Since there could not be any transfer in the instant case, it has to be held that the amount of Rs. 1,02,500 received by the assessee as damages was not assessable as capital gains" 2. Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. V/s. C.I.T [158 ITR 636] (Guj.) Facts: Seller company contracted to sell a second hand mill to taxpayer for agreed consideration. In breach of contract, seller company sold the mill to third party. Taxpayer received compensation from seller in settlement of claims of the taxpayer for breach of the contract which was claimed as non-chargeable capital receipt. Held: HC…

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 :…

ACIT,CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. AKASH PODDAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4344/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 17(3)(iii)

…ted service. And since, the assessee has completed only two completed years of service, for the purpose of taxation. Keeping in view the jurisprudence laid down as in the cases of CIT Vs. J. Dalmia (149 ITR 215) (Del.), Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (158 ITR 636) (Guj.), Bhojison Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (173 ITD 436), and ACIT Vs. Jackie Shroff (172 ITD 425) with regard to taxation of amount received as compensation for giving up the “Right to sue” and also keeping in view of the principles of real income, eligible income, receivable income and the accounting principles thereof as laid down abov…

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

…of law is a “capital receipt” in the hands of the appellant company not assessable either as capital gains or business income in view of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional 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 an…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL GULABDAS SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 5134/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5134/Mum/2017 & Co. No. 319/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit – 24(1) Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah, Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, B-1601, Titanium Towers बनाम/ 16Th Floor, Jai View Chsl Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Sahakar Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmfps-8959-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)/Respondent (""थ" / Respondent)/Appellant : Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil G. Shah – Assessee-In-Person सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-36/It-217/Acit-24(1)/15-16 Dated 26/05/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

…1 ITA No.5134/Mum/2017 & CO. No. 319/Mum/2018 Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah Assessment Year :2012-13. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5134/Mum/2017 & CO. No. 319/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT – 24(1) Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah, Room No. 604, 6th Floor, B-1601, Titanium Towers बनाम/ 16th Floor, Jai View CHSL Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Sahakar Nagar, An…

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)

…as capital gains. The interest amount was, however, a revenue receipt. It was taxable as if it had accrued from year to year from 30-1-1959 to the date of the consent decree. 16. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Baroda Cements & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 636/25 Taxman 324 (Guj.) held that the assessee engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar contracted to buy a second hand mill for an agreed price. Subsequently, the vendor committed breach of contract which entitled the assessee to receive damages. The court held that since a "right to sue" for damage was not an actionable claim, there could be no qu…

TELENOR (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7541/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. &nFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rans, CIT(DR)

…said actionable claim agreement from UW nor there was any transfer as envisaged in Section 2 (47) of the Act. 22. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Baroda Cements and Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (158 ITR 636). In the said case, the assessee entered into a contract with another company to purchase a second-hand mill for an agreed price. Subsequently, the vendor committed a breach of the contract by defaulting to sell the machinery, etc., to the assessee and sold the same to a third party. The assessee received compensation in full and final 31 32 se…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 1392/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 92B

…made it clear that the assessee had received the impugned settlement sum in lieu of surrendering its right to sue than former any transfer giving rise to capital receipt only as held in hon'ble Gujarat high court’s decision in Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. ( 158 ITR 636 (Guj) followed by various tribunals’ decisions. We thus conclude that CIT(A) has rightly held the assessee to have received the impugned sum not in lieu of conceding its right to sue in foreign courts. We thus confirm the CIT(A)’s order under challenge holding the impugned receipt to be capital receipt. The Revenue fails in its instant last subst…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 1391/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 92B

DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 1390/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 92B

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

…said land as per the terms and conditions of the development agreement. Thus, quoted from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Baroda ITA No. 2449/Ahd/16 [Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 4 - Cement & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj) the only recourse available to the assessee company was to file a suit in the Courts of law for specific performance of preemptive right to purchase the land as per the development agreement. Such right to file a suit in the Courts of law for specific performance of preemptive right to purchase the land as per development agreement is nothi…

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 1277/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 43(1)

…question of capital gain. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following judgments : 1. CIT Vs. J. Dalmia 149 ITR 215 (Delhi 2. CIT Vs. Abbashboy A. Dehgamwalla 195 ITR 28 (Bom.) 3. Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj.) 4. Dhruv N. Shah 88 ITD 118 (Mumb Trib.) 12. We heard both the sides, perused the orders of the Revenue authorities on the issue of taxability of capital gain u/s.2(47) of the Act. We have also perused the decisions relied on by both the representatives. This is the appeal by the Revenue and it relies on the applicability of the provis…

SUPERMAX PERSONAL CARE P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI

ITA 6107/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-CIT-DR

Section 143Section 2(47)Section 254(1)Section 9Section 9(1)

…2) capital asset, (3) the profit or gain must arise out of transfer, and (4) "sale, exchange and relinquishment or transfer". The basic principle,enumerated in the above matter,is applicable as it is,even today.In the case of Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd.,(158 ITR 636)the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had held that the two basic requirements for charging capital gains were (i) there must be a transfer of a capital asset;(ii) profit or gains must have arisen from the transfer after making deductions as provided by section 48 of the Act.The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court,in the matter of Mohanbhai Pamabhai(91 ITR 393)h…