CIT v. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd.

267 ITR 702High Court2004#20222 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

person company section 143(3)india business

Judgments citing CIT v. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd.

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

…110 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT vs. Aeren R. Infrastructure Ltd.: (2018) 404 ITR 318 (Del HC) (viii) CIT vs. Shard Sinha [2016] 237 Taxman 111 (Del HC) (ix) PCIT vs. Pawa Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.: [2023] 457 ITR 392 (Del HC) (x) CIT v. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd.: (2004) 267 ITR 702 (Mad) (xi) CIT v. J. L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593 (Cal) b. Section 28(ii)(e) of the Act provides that any compensation received/ receivable in connection with the termination or the modification of the terms and conditions of any contract relating to the business shall be taxable as business income; importantly, the said provision…

M J Associates, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Palakkad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 785/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…rofit making apparatus is a capital receipt.” 5. The appellant firm claimed that the compensation amount of Rs. 25,71,00,000/- is capital receipt and exempt from tax as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 702 and CIT v. TL&M Sales Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 116. 6. However, the AO was of the opinion that on account of cancellation of the contract of distribution vide settlement deed M.J. Associates dated 04.07.2011, the business of the appellant firm had not resulted in closure nor deprived the appellant from carrying on similar line of business in the abse…

M J Associates, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Palakkad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 784/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram A.S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Late Shri T.T. Vasu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2247/CHNY/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Philip George (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Halen Ruby Jesintha (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 28

…wherein similar payment were held to be compensation for impairment of the profit- making apparatus of the assessee and for the sterilization of the very source of income. Similar was stated to the decision of Hon’ble Court in CIT V/s Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. (267 ITR 702). The assessee thus submitted that the amount were capital receipts and not taxable. The provisions of Sec. 28(va) were incorporated w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and therefore, the same would not be applicable to earlier years. The provision of Sec. 10(3) would also not be applicable since the receipts were pursuant to the written agreements and could not b…