CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT

249 ITR 265High Court2001#3264 most cited

What is CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Capital receipts can be subjected to tax as income. The nature of receipts is determined by the purpose of payment.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Cadell Weaving Mill Co. v. CIT · capital receipts · income receipts · taxability of capital receipts · nature of receipts · purpose of payment

Issues it is cited on

indiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

ITA 2719/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 68

…nt transaction can be subjected to transaction can be subjected to tax as Income. This is tax as Income. This is settled by the decision of this Court in Cadell Weaving the decision of this Court in Cadell Weaving Mill Co. v. CIT [2011] Mill Co. v. CIT [2011] 249 ITR 265/116 Taxman 77 was upheld by the Apex 249 ITR 265/116 Taxman 77 was upheld by the Apex 249 ITR 265/116 Taxman 77 was upheld by the Apex Court in CIT v. D.P Sandu Bros. Chember (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 CIT v. D.P Sandu Bros. Chember (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 CIT v. D.P Sandu Bros. Chember (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713. This C…

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 :…

SAJJANRAJ JAIN & WIFE (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 195/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. income from LTCG to “Income from other sources”. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as aga…

SAJJAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 194/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. income from LTCG to “Income from other sources”. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as aga…

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN(HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. income from LTCG to “Income from other sources”. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as aga…

PREMLATA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. income from LTCG to “Income from other sources”. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as aga…

ANITA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. income from LTCG to “Income from other sources”. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as aga…

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. income from LTCG to “Income from other sources”. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as aga…

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. income from LTCG to “Income from other sources”. For the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision in the case of CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001]249 ITR 265 (Bom.), CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C), and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the assessee had voluntarily offered the income to tax, the same cannot be treated as income from other sources as aga…

DCIT - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GBTL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. GRASIM BHIWANI TEXTILES LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2668/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm Dcit-4(2)(2) M/S. Gbtl Ltd. Room No.640, 6Th Floor (Formerly Known As M/S. Grasim Aaykar Bhawan, Bhiwani Textiles Ltd.) Vs. M.K.Road 409, Cotton Exchange Building Mumbai-400 020 Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aaccg9347F (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Khalsa-DRFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivaram-AR
Section 43B

…company has given the grant to meet the capital loss, hence, cannot be assessed as income from other sources. He reiterated that this is capital grant and cannot be taxed. He further relied on following case laws :- • Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (249 ITR 265)(Bom HC) • CIT Vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. (273 ITR1(SC) • CIT Vs. Smt. T.P. Sidhwa (133 ITR 840)(Bom HC) 7 2668/Mum/2018 17. In rejoinder learned Departmental Representative submitted that even if the particular receipt is not considered under section 56(2) the same would not take away the generality of the provisions of section 56(1…

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

…mental difference between capital receipts and income receipts. The income receipts are liable to tax u/s 4 of the Act, but capital receipts are not liable to tax except the capital gain. He relied up on 57 ITR 36 (SC) CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd., 249 ITR 265 (Bom) Caddle Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 273 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu Brothers Pvt. Ltd. , 195 ITR 877 (SC) Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT, 57 ITR 36 (SC) CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. 6.1 The nature and character of receipts is determined with reference to the purpose for which the payments are made. He relied up on 48 ITR…

ITO 5 (2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MILLIONAIRE COMMODIITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3268/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2012-13 The Ito-5(2)(3), M/S.Millionaire Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai A-32, Haji Allarakha Building, Vs. 3Rd , 9Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai [Pan : Aahcm3086G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.G.PansariFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Mehta &
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 56(1)Section 68

…eived on application of ALP. Therefore, absent express legislation, no amount received, accrued or arising on capital account transaction can be subjected to tax as Income. This is settled by the decision of this Court in Cadell Weaving Mill Co. v. CIT [2011] 249 ITR 265/116 Taxman 77 was upheld by the Apex Court in CIT v. D.P Sandu Bros. Chember (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713. This Court has in Cadell Weaving Mills Co. (supra) inter alia, observed as under:— 'It is well settled that all receipts are not taxable under the Income tax Act. Section 2(24) defines "income". It is no doubt an inclusive defin…

ALLAUDDIN NOORMOHAMED KADIWALA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 5105/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaallauddin Noormohamed Vs. Ito -31(1)(1) Kadiwala 407, Earnest House A/301, New Ekta Chsl Nariman Point Behram Baug, Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 102 Pan/Gir No.Aabpk6147K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 54F

…nder section 10(3) and was assessable as ‘income from other source’. 14. The decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal has been reversed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Cadell Weaving Mills 12 Allauddin Noormohamed Kadiwala Co (P) Ltd Vs CIT (249 ITR 265 Bom). The Hon’ble High Court held that whenever there is a receipt, one has to ascertain its source: if it is a business income or salary income or capital gains chargeable under section 45. Further, inquiry has to be made, viz., whether the receipt is casual and non-recurring. Since capital gains are brought within the tax net under section 45,…

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)

…45 of Income tax act. 7. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions : (i) Bhojison Infrastructure (P) Ltd Vs ITO [2018] 99 taxmann.com 26 (Ahmedabad Tribunal), (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…

SHRI ASHISH TANDON, ,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1954/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 54FSection 55

…essee could not, therefore, be said to be capital gain on sale of an asset without any cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer also noted reliance of the assessee on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of Cadell Wvg Mills Co Ltd Vs CIT [(2001) 249 ITR 265 (Bom)], which stands approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported as CIT Vs D P Sandhu Bros Chembur Pvt Ltd [(2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC)], the Assessing Officer observed that the issue adjudicated by Hon’ble Court was taxability of consideration against surrendering the tenancy rights which had no cost of acquisition but then in the present c…

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

…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); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265 (Mum) etc. in support of their contention that where the payment was made to compensate a person for cancellation of contract, it is 7 in the nature of capital receipt. On a careful perusal of these orders, we find that the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dhruv N. Shah vs CIT (supra); CIT vs J. Dalmia (supra); and Ster…

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

…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); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265 (Mum) etc. in support of their contention that where the payment was made to compensate a person for cancellation of contract, it is 7 in the nature of capital receipt. On a careful perusal of these orders, we find that the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dhruv N. Shah vs CIT (supra); CIT vs J. Dalmia (supra); and Ster…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…be computed and the excess share premium could be taxed, therefore in absence of computation provision the same cannot be taxed. The reliance is placed in following cases: - i) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Wvg. Mills Co.(p) Ltd. V CIT 249 ITR 265 had an occasion to consider the taxability of a sum received in respect of consideration of tenancy Right. It was accepted both by revenue and the assessee that tenancy right is a Capital receipt. Income as defined in section 2(24)(vi) is the income chargeable u/s 45. Hence capital gain chargeable u/s 45 or not will be taxable in case the argumen…

MSC CREWING SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7110/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodmsc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 8(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 .... Respondent Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 10(2)(2) R.No.209,Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 Vs. Msc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri N.K.Chand Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11 Order

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(i)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 47Section 56Section 68Section 92

…ot received on application of ALP. Therefore, absent express legislation, no amount received, accrued or arising on capital account transaction can be subjected to tax as Income. This is settled by the decision of this Court in Cadell Weaving Mill Co. vs. CIT 249 ITR 265 was upheld by the Apex Court in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chember (P) Ltd. 273 ITR 1. This Court has in Cadell Weaving Mills Co. (supra) inter alia, observed as under:- " It is well settled that all receipts are not taxable under the Income tax Act. Section 2(24) defines "income". It is no doubt an inclusive definition. However, a capital receipt…

YOGESH SUNDERLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6093/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 2(47)Section 269USection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…to include a case where a person holds tenancy rights, even if for an extended period, and which is otherwise liable to be considered as a capital asset (refer: CIT vs. Khimline Pumps Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR 459 (Bom); Cadell Wearing Mill Co. Ltd. vs. UOI [2001] 249 ITR 265 (Bom)). Further, that the extended meaning of the word ‘owner’ would not include a deemed owner, so that reference by the assessee to the provisions of section 27(iiib) and section 269UA(f) was, in its view, of no moment. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. T. N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46 (SC); CIT vs. Gopa…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

CIT and Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (249 ITR 265) — Cited in 36 Judgments | BharatTax