CIT Assam v. The Panbari

57 ITR 422Supreme Court of India1965#2317 most cited

What is CIT Assam v. The Panbari authority for?

The substance of a transaction, not merely its form, determines whether a payment is a capital receipt (like a premium or salami for transferring a right to enjoy property) or revenue income (like periodical rent), even if the capital payment is made in instalments.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. 57 ITR 422 · substance over form · capital receipt · revenue expenditure · salami income tax · premium for lease · rent vs premium · Section 80IA · Section 143(3) · business income classification · transfer of property income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 201(1A)Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 80IA(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 80iasection 80irevenue expendituresection 80transferprevious yearcompanyindiabusinesspersonsection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT Assam v. The Panbari

M/S. DRAIPL-MSKEL(JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 249/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…t received payment directly from NHAI with appropriate TDS. Thus, substance of a transaction/Agreement is to be seen and not merely the Form thereof. On said principle, the appellant placed reliance on the following judgements: (i) Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 422 (SC); (ii) Rajiv Kalia (2011) 8 ITR (T) 741 (Delhi Trib); (iii) Mangal Keshav Securities Ltd. (2017) 46 ITR (T) 458 (Mum Trib); (iv) Harmuny Entertainment (P.) Ltd. (2023) 157 taxmann.com 547 (Kol Trib). (v) Kanhaiya Lal Moti Lal (1969) 72 ITR 507 (Allahabad HC); (vi) Maharaja Shri Umed Mills (1984) 148 ITR 72 A (Raj. HC) (vii) Motors & General St…

M/S. DRAIPAL-MSKEL (JV),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2449/AHD/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

…t received payment directly from NHAI with appropriate TDS. Thus, substance of a transaction/Agreement is to be seen and not merely the Form thereof. On said principle, the appellant placed reliance on the following judgements: (i) Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 422 (SC); (ii) Rajiv Kalia (2011) 8 ITR (T) 741 (Delhi Trib); (iii) Mangal Keshav Securities Ltd. (2017) 46 ITR (T) 458 (Mum Trib); (iv) Harmuny Entertainment (P.) Ltd. (2023) 157 taxmann.com 547 (Kol Trib). (v) Kanhaiya Lal Moti Lal (1969) 72 ITR 507 (Allahabad HC); (vi) Maharaja Shri Umed Mills (1984) 148 ITR 72 A (Raj. HC) (vii) Motors & General St…

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 338/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

…eration paid by the tenant for being let into possession and can be neither rent nor revenue but is a capital receipt in the hands of the landlord. 10. This was further elaborated in a later decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 422. It was held in that case that it was not necessary that there should be a single lump sum payment and that salami could be paid by a single payment or by instalments. After referring to the definition in s. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court further observed (p. 425) : "The section, therefore, brings out the distinction betwe…

GARGI GANGULY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(1), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2147/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. Dcit(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/P Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alspg8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri I. Banerjee, Ca Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) - 22, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2017 In Case No.15/Cit(A)-22/Kol/10-11/15-16 & 14/Cit(A)-22/Kol/11-12/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’); Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Persued. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Substantive Ground Raised In Both The Instant Appeals Challenges The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating The Sums In Issue Of Rs.60,34,310/- & Rs.44,61,160/-(Assessment Year Wise Respectively) As Income

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 127Section 131Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…sion. We also hold that the mere fact of the payer having made TDS ought not to be taken as the sole decisive factor to treat the corresponding amount as assessee’s taxable income as per hon’ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs. Panbari Tea Company Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 422(SC). We accordingly accept the assessee’s substantive grievance and delete the impugned addition of Rs.60,34,310/-. Lead case appeal ITA No.2146/Kol/2018 is accepted. [Same order to be followed in assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.2147/Kol/2018 in absence of any distinction on facts qua the sole issue (supra)]. 8. Before parting, it is noted that t…

GARGI GANGULY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE - 1(1), , KOLKATA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2146/KOL/2018[ 2010-11 ]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A Nos.2146&2147/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Gargi Ganguly Vs. Dcit(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. C/P Guha & Matilal Gillander House, Mezzanine Floor, Block-E, 8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alspg8198C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri I. Banerjee, Ca Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These Two Assessee’S Appeals For Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) - 22, Kolkata’S Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2017 In Case No.15/Cit(A)-22/Kol/10-11/15-16 & 14/Cit(A)-22/Kol/11-12/15-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’); Respectively. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Persued. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Substantive Ground Raised In Both The Instant Appeals Challenges The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating The Sums In Issue Of Rs.60,34,310/- & Rs.44,61,160/-(Assessment Year Wise Respectively) As Income

For Appellant: Shri I. Banerjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 127Section 131Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…sion. We also hold that the mere fact of the payer having made TDS ought not to be taken as the sole decisive factor to treat the corresponding amount as assessee’s taxable income as per hon’ble apex court’s decision in CIT vs. Panbari Tea Company Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 422(SC). We accordingly accept the assessee’s substantive grievance and delete the impugned addition of Rs.60,34,310/-. Lead case appeal ITA No.2146/Kol/2018 is accepted. [Same order to be followed in assessee’s latter appeal ITA No.2147/Kol/2018 in absence of any distinction on facts qua the sole issue (supra)]. 8. Before parting, it is noted that t…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAWIN SPORTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal is Allowed

ITA 59/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…iii) In the case of lease of immovable property, the Supreme Court has held that any premium paid for acquisition of the right to lease would constitute capital payment but not a periodic payment for the actual use of the property [CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd, 57 ITR 422 (SC)]. While tenancy right per se is considered as a capital asset [5.5 (2)], payment for the usage of such tenancy right is always revenue expenditure. (iv) The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820 has held that even though lump sum amount paid as premium in connection with lease of property as long as ITA. Nos. 59 & 60…

DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAWIN SPORTS P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4678/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…premium paid for acquisition of the right to lease would constitute capital payment bin no! a periodic payment for the actual use of the property 8 ITA No. 4614 & 4678/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2015-16) M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited [CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. 57 ITR 422 (SC)]. While tenancy right per sc is considered as a capital asset [5.5 (2)], payment for the usage of such tenancy right is always revenue expenditure. (iv) The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820 has held that even though lump sum amount paid as premium in connection with lease of property as long as if is towards ren…

INDIAWIN SPORTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeal of the assessee as well as the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4614/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blem/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Indiawin Sports Private Limited Court House, 3Rd Floor Central Circle – 6(2) Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao Room No. 1903, Air India Building Mumbai – 400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aadcr8195F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LakharaFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

…premium paid for acquisition of the right to lease would constitute capital payment bin no! a periodic payment for the actual use of the property 8 ITA No. 4614 & 4678/Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2015-16) M/s. Indiawin Sports Private Limited [CIT v. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. 57 ITR 422 (SC)]. While tenancy right per sc is considered as a capital asset [5.5 (2)], payment for the usage of such tenancy right is always revenue expenditure. (iv) The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. HMT Ltd. 203 ITR 820 has held that even though lump sum amount paid as premium in connection with lease of property as long as if is towards ren…

M/S. STP LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 749/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, Kolkata M/S Stp Limited C/O. G.P. Agarwal & Associates, 7A, Kiran Shankar Ray Road, 2Nd Floor, Kol-1. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs6339M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Kothari, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…llowing judgments: a) AR Krishnamurti -vs- CIT, 1989 176 ITR 417 (SC] b) Traders & Minors Ltd. [1955] 27 ITR 341 [Patna High Court] c) A. Gaspcr-vs-CIT 192 ITR 382 [SC] d) A. Gasper-vs-CIT [1979] 117 ITR 581 [Calcutta HC e) CIT-vs-Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 422 Thus it is evident that creation of sub lease rights would also amount to transfer of Leasehold Rights, under certain conditions. Whether the lessor continues getting rent even after the date of transfer is not relevant in deciding whether transfer has taken place. Perusal of the two agreements with M/s. ARA Enterprises Pvt. Ltd shows that agreem…

ACIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 98/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…n arriving at its decision the Tribunal had considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs HMT Ltd (203 ITR 803) which in turn was based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Panbari Tea Co. Ltd (57 ITR 422). In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the use of the word ‘premium’ in respect of advance rent did not render the payment anything more than rent paid in advance, instead of paying the same in future periodically. The coordinate bench of this Tribunal also took note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the c…

BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 111/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…n arriving at its decision the Tribunal had considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs HMT Ltd (203 ITR 803) which in turn was based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Panbari Tea Co. Ltd (57 ITR 422). In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the use of the word ‘premium’ in respect of advance rent did not render the payment anything more than rent paid in advance, instead of paying the same in future periodically. The coordinate bench of this Tribunal also took note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the c…

AMADEUS GLOBAL TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SA,SPAIN vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 1494/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiamadeus Global Travel Vs. Adit, Distribution Sa Circle-1(1), (Now Known As Amadeus It International Taxation, Group Sa), New Delhi Salvador De Madariaga, E- 28027, Madrid, Spain Pan: Aafca9629P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 80HSection 9

…n this regard is placed on the following decisions:  Bhopal Sugar Industries vs. Sales Tax Officer: 3 SCC 147 (1977)  Assam Small Scale Ind. Dev. Corp. Ltd. and Ors. v. J.D. Pharmaceuticals and Anr.: (2005) 13 SCC 19 (SC)  CIT vs. The Panbari Tea Co. Ltd.: 57 ITR 422 (Kar HC) The fact of the matter is that the aforesaid expenditure has been actually incurred and gone out of the coffers of the appellant and has been received by AIPL towards services rendered by AIPL as per the distribution agreement which involved marketing of the CRS including software development. In fact, the CIT(A) while completing the asse…

DCIT, CIR-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

496/Kol/2014

ITA 471/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ses. Obviously differential treatment need to be given for both in the light of difference between the term ‘ rent’ and ‘premium’ as the said difference has been duly noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Panbari Tea Company Ltd reported in 57 ITR 422 (SC). In the absence of proper finding in the order of the authorities below with regard to the same, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fairplay, to remand this issue to the file of ld AO for denovo adjudication of the issue afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to advance fresh argu…

BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

496/Kol/2014

ITA 421/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ses. Obviously differential treatment need to be given for both in the light of difference between the term ‘ rent’ and ‘premium’ as the said difference has been duly noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Panbari Tea Company Ltd reported in 57 ITR 422 (SC). In the absence of proper finding in the order of the authorities below with regard to the same, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fairplay, to remand this issue to the file of ld AO for denovo adjudication of the issue afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to advance fresh argu…

DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD., KOLKATA

496/Kol/2014

ITA 496/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ses. Obviously differential treatment need to be given for both in the light of difference between the term ‘ rent’ and ‘premium’ as the said difference has been duly noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Panbari Tea Company Ltd reported in 57 ITR 422 (SC). In the absence of proper finding in the order of the authorities below with regard to the same, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fairplay, to remand this issue to the file of ld AO for denovo adjudication of the issue afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to advance fresh argu…

M/S BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

496/Kol/2014

ITA 483/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…ses. Obviously differential treatment need to be given for both in the light of difference between the term ‘ rent’ and ‘premium’ as the said difference has been duly noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Panbari Tea Company Ltd reported in 57 ITR 422 (SC). In the absence of proper finding in the order of the authorities below with regard to the same, we deem it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice and fairplay, to remand this issue to the file of ld AO for denovo adjudication of the issue afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to advance fresh argu…

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 298/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Bhagban Panda/D.K.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 194Section 201(1)

…ed as a payment of rent and subject to TDS u/s. 194-1. The Ld. A.R. placed reliance in the case of Raja Shiva Prasad Singh Vrs. King emperor AIR 1924 Patna 679, Board of Agricultural Income-tax Vrs. Sindhurani AIR 1957 SC 729, CIT Vrs. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. 57 ITR 422 (SC), Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vrs. CIT 252 ITR 622 (Del.). Further, Ld. A.R. submitted that onetime payment to acquire leasehold land is premium, but not rent by placing reliance in the case of A.R. Krishna Murthy & Ann Vrs. CIT, Madras on 10.02.1989 reported in 1989 AIR 2055, 1989 SCR(l) 596, ITO, Ward-50(1) , New Delhi Vrsr M/s. Indian Newsp…

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, SARDA MINES PVT. LTD.,KEONJHAR vs. ACIT(TDS)-II, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/CTK/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Bhagban Panda/D.K.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 194Section 201(1)

…ed as a payment of rent and subject to TDS u/s. 194-1. The Ld. A.R. placed reliance in the case of Raja Shiva Prasad Singh Vrs. King emperor AIR 1924 Patna 679, Board of Agricultural Income-tax Vrs. Sindhurani AIR 1957 SC 729, CIT Vrs. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. 57 ITR 422 (SC), Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vrs. CIT 252 ITR 622 (Del.). Further, Ld. A.R. submitted that onetime payment to acquire leasehold land is premium, but not rent by placing reliance in the case of A.R. Krishna Murthy & Ann Vrs. CIT, Madras on 10.02.1989 reported in 1989 AIR 2055, 1989 SCR(l) 596, ITO, Ward-50(1) , New Delhi Vrsr M/s. Indian Newsp…

DCIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED STATES PHARMACOPEIA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed and the C

ITA 1582/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri M.H. Naik
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1582/Hyd/2017 and C.O. No. 37/Hyd/2017 A.Y.: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income- vs. M/s United States tax, Circle – 17(2), Hyderabad. Pharmacopeia India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN – AAACU 7542 C (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Revenue by : Shri M.H. Naik Assessee by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan Date of hearing 01-06-2017 Date of pronouncement 08-06-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal is preferred by the revenue against…

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MADHYA PRADESH AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (I) LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 534/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…her reliance was placed on the judgment of AP High Court in the case of Aditya Minerals Pvt Ltd. 167 ITR 774 which was relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) in AY 92-93. The reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Panbari Tea Co Ltd. 57 ITR 422. -: 61 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore The ITAT Pune bench after considering the arguments of the revenue and various judgment of the Supreme Court and other High Courts has held: In our opinion, it is the settled legal proposition that where lump-sum money is paid before acquiring leasehold rights then such payment has to be cons…

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3