CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) Rohitasava Chand v. CIT

279 ITR 573High Court2005#15582 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) Rohitasava Chand v. CIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-41(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 551/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-41(2)(1), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, 111, Marathon Max Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mulund Goregoan Link Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 28

…dhana & Ors., ITA No. ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., ITA No. ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 3900/Mum/2010 ix. Rohitasava Chand Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) x. CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) xi. CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts…

ACIT 26 (3), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6557/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-26(3), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, R. No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya 1204, Park Royale, Madan Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mohan Malviye Road, Bandra East, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Nilu Jaggi, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Nilu Jaggi, CIT-DR

Section 28(11)(a)

…s. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., 3900/Mum/2010 3900/Mum/2010 ix. Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) x. CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) xi. CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in 12. The jurisdictional ITAT i…

PRANAY GODHA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result we are in agreement with a finding of Ld

ITA 1185/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mani Jain/Prateek JainFor Respondent: Sh. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 28

…IT 107 ITR 483 (Mad.) vi) Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs CIT 155 ITR 681 (Kar.) vii) Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT 153 ITR 282 (Mad.) viii) ACIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana & Ors., ITA No. 3900/Mum/2010 ix) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) x) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) xi) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 13. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, held as under “Admittedly, in the share purchase agreement no consideration was assigned towards non-compete fees and the parties had entered into the share purchase agreement af…

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha

Section 54F

…ceived by way of compensation under a restrictive covenant or under a non-compete agreement, it would amount to a capital receipt in the hands of the recipient. Similar view has seen taken, by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar (279 ITR 573) wherein the High Court, dismissing the departmental appeal held that amount received for agreeing not to engage in competing business is a capital receipt. However these cases are for assessment years prior to incorporation of section 28(va) w.e.f. 1.4.2003. 5.35. It is noted that there are other decisions on this issue which are discussed next.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. TARA SINHA

The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs

ITA/154/2005HC Delhi11 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 28

…Guffic Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 32 ITR 602 (SC) (hereafter, ‘Guffic Chemical’), 5. Rohitasava Chand v. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del) (hereafter, ‘Rohitasava Chand’), 6. CIT v. A.S. Wardekar 283 ITR 432 (Cal) (hereafter, ‘A.S. Wardekar), 7. CIT v. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal) (hereafter, ‘Saroj Kumar Poddar’), 8. CIT v. Saraswati Publicity (1981) 132 ITR 207 (Mad) (hereafter, ‘Saraswati Publicity’), 9. Lachhman Das v. CIT 124 ITR 706 (Del) (hereafter, ‘Lachhman Das’) and, 10. Beak v. Robson (1943) 11 ITR Suppl. 23 16. Mr. Navet further submitted that the share transactions could not in any manner be held to be t…

ROHITASAVA CHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/611/2007HC Delhi20 Mar 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

…was a revenue receipt. The Madras High court followed its earlier view and held that compensation received in respect of a restrictive covenant is not taxable as it is a capital receipt. 19. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Saroj Kumar Poddar, [2005] 279 ITR 573, the assessee had acquired considerable knowledge and expertise in the field of manufacture of shaving blades and other products with special reference to the manufacturing process, sources of raw materials and the marketing of the products of Gillette. On 18th January, 1996, Gillette entered into a non-compete agreement with the assessee w…