CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd.

60 ITR 11Supreme Court of India1966#1768 most cited

What is CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Compensation received for the breach of a contract for hotel management is a capital receipt, not a trading receipt. Similarly, compensation for agreeing not to carry on competitive business or for loss of goodwill is also considered a capital receipt.

64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. · capital receipt · compensation for breach of contract · hotel management contract · loss of goodwill · non-compete agreement · capital asset

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 35abbdepreciation on non-compete feesection 35abtest of enduring benefitnon-compete feesection 55(2)section 35aresulting companyenduring benefitmat creditdisallowance under section 40(a)(ia)section 55

Judgments citing CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd.

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 241/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…3 taxmann.com 388 (ITAT Mumbai Bench) (iii) ACIT v. Real Image Tech (P) Ltd 177 Taxmann (Chennai) (Mag.) (iv) Scott Glass India (P) Ltd. (ITA No.1698/Mum/2003) (ITAT Mumbai) (v) Sri.B.Ravendran Pillai v. CIT (194 Taxman 477) (Kerala HC) (vi) CIT v. Best & Co. 60 ITR 11 (SC) 6. However, the AO was of the opinion that the claim of allowance of depreciation cannot be allowed, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution v. CIT (2012) 254 CTR 233 (Delhi). Accordingly, made the disallowance of depreciation claimed as non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. 7. Being a…

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 240/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…3 taxmann.com 388 (ITAT Mumbai Bench) (iii) ACIT v. Real Image Tech (P) Ltd 177 Taxmann (Chennai) (Mag.) (iv) Scott Glass India (P) Ltd. (ITA No.1698/Mum/2003) (ITAT Mumbai) (v) Sri.B.Ravendran Pillai v. CIT (194 Taxman 477) (Kerala HC) (vi) CIT v. Best & Co. 60 ITR 11 (SC) 6. However, the AO was of the opinion that the claim of allowance of depreciation cannot be allowed, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution v. CIT (2012) 254 CTR 233 (Delhi). Accordingly, made the disallowance of depreciation claimed as non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. 7. Being a…

M/S Inditrade Capital Ltd (Previously Known As, Kochi vs. The ITO, Corporate Ward1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 239/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Aneesh Vishwanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…3 taxmann.com 388 (ITAT Mumbai Bench) (iii) ACIT v. Real Image Tech (P) Ltd 177 Taxmann (Chennai) (Mag.) (iv) Scott Glass India (P) Ltd. (ITA No.1698/Mum/2003) (ITAT Mumbai) (v) Sri.B.Ravendran Pillai v. CIT (194 Taxman 477) (Kerala HC) (vi) CIT v. Best & Co. 60 ITR 11 (SC) 6. However, the AO was of the opinion that the claim of allowance of depreciation cannot be allowed, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Solution v. CIT (2012) 254 CTR 233 (Delhi). Accordingly, made the disallowance of depreciation claimed as non-compete fee of Rs.93,75,000. 7. Being a…

The Defence Accounts Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(4), Meerut

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1112/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

…ariable annual license fee to be paid on the basis of the annual gross revenue. It was held that the reliance placed by the Hon'ble High Court in cases of Jonas Woodhead and Sons India Limited v. CIT 91 Taxman 1/224 ITR 342 (SC)(SC); CIT v. Best and Co [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC); Southern Switch Gear Limited v. CIT 232 ITR 359 (SC) was misplaced, as these cases do not deal with a single source or purpose to which the payments in different forms have been made. The purpose of the payments in the said case was traceable to different subject matters. In the instant case, the license issued under section 4 of the Telegrap…

Vartul Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Najibabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1111/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 260ASection 35ASection 37(1)Section 40

…ariable annual license fee to be paid on the basis of the annual gross revenue. It was held that the reliance placed by the Hon'ble High Court in cases of Jonas Woodhead and Sons India Limited v. CIT 91 Taxman 1/224 ITR 342 (SC)(SC); CIT v. Best and Co [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC); Southern Switch Gear Limited v. CIT 232 ITR 359 (SC) was misplaced, as these cases do not deal with a single source or purpose to which the payments in different forms have been made. The purpose of the payments in the said case was traceable to different subject matters. In the instant case, the license issued under section 4 of the Telegrap…

Oberoi Hotels Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata.

ITA 1811/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…this court.” b. Khanna and Annadhanam v.CIT. [2013] 30taxmann.com322(Delhi). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: - “8. On behalf of the revenue our attention was drawn to another judgment of the Supreme Court in CITv. Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11. This judgment was rendered by the same bench which had earlier rendered the judgment in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (supra). The decision was however in favour of the revenue. The earlier judgment in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (supra) was referred to in the judgment but the Supreme Court observed that the application of the principle laid down…

DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata vs. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1808/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…this court.” b. Khanna and Annadhanam v.CIT. [2013] 30taxmann.com322(Delhi). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: - “8. On behalf of the revenue our attention was drawn to another judgment of the Supreme Court in CITv. Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11. This judgment was rendered by the same bench which had earlier rendered the judgment in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (supra). The decision was however in favour of the revenue. The earlier judgment in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (supra) was referred to in the judgment but the Supreme Court observed that the application of the principle laid down…

Oberoi Hotels Private Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

ITA 489/KOL/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…this court.” b. Khanna and Annadhanam v.CIT. [2013] 30taxmann.com322(Delhi). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: - “8. On behalf of the revenue our attention was drawn to another judgment of the Supreme Court in CITv. Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11. This judgment was rendered by the same bench which had earlier rendered the judgment in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (supra). The decision was however in favour of the revenue. The earlier judgment in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (supra) was referred to in the judgment but the Supreme Court observed that the application of the principle laid down…

Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle, Kurukshetra

ITA 296/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

…re of profit and should to be assessed as revenue receipts only and not capital received. This view is bolstered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Das Gupta vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 783 and in the case of CIT Vs. Best & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 60 ITR 11 (SC), wherein it was held that where compensation is received for loss of an enduring asset, it would be a capita! receipt but where it is received in the ordinary course of business, it shall be a revenue receipt. It was also held that no injury had been caused to the capital structure of the assessee and, therefore, the receipt was revenue in nat…

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2735/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

…on (Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act). 6.5 Burden of proof in its primary sense means the duty of establishing the case. It remains where it is throughout the case it never sits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of CIT VS BEST & Co. Ltd 60 ITR 11 has laid out the principle as under: "It has never been laid out that the burden to establish that the income was taxable was immutably on the revenue. It is only in the first instance. As per the law of Evidence the process is shifting of the onus in the course of proceedings. When sufficient evidence has been disclosed by the revenue and adverse…

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 2734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

…on (Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act). 6.5 Burden of proof in its primary sense means the duty of establishing the case. It remains where it is throughout the case it never sits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of CIT VS BEST & Co. Ltd 60 ITR 11 has laid out the principle as under: "It has never been laid out that the burden to establish that the income was taxable was immutably on the revenue. It is only in the first instance. As per the law of Evidence the process is shifting of the onus in the course of proceedings. When sufficient evidence has been disclosed by the revenue and adverse…

Ashwin S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 422/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleashwin S. Mehta V. Dcit – Central Circle – 23 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B. Road [Now Dcit, Cc-4(1)] Worli, Mumbai – 400018 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Abapm2121M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14A

…on (Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act). 6.5 Burden of proof in its primary sense means the duty of establishing the case. It remains where it is throughout the case it never sits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of CIT VS BEST & Co. Ltd 60 ITR 11 has laid out the principle as under: "It has never been laid out that the burden to establish that the income was taxable was immutably on the revenue. It is only in the first instance. As per the law of Evidence the process is shifting of the onus in the course of proceedings. When sufficient evidence has been disclosed by the revenue and adverse…

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…atter held that the contract for management for hotel was not a trading contract, but a capital asset by itself and the compensation received for its breach could only be considered as having the character of a capital receipt. ii) CIT v. Best & Co. (P) Ltd (60 ITR 11) (Supreme Court): The court observed as follows: "This Court in Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd v. CIT (53ITR 283) (SC): TC 13R. 1253 accepted the said principle and held that the compensation paid for agreeing to refrain from carrying on competitive business in the commodities in respect of the agency terminated or for loss of goodwill was prima fa…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-3(1), Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S M/S Risabh Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 30/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.(S)29 & 30/Rpr/2017 Co No.(S) 04 & 05/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Risabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Manas Bhawan, Near Adarsh Garage, Opp. Pujari Park, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aaccr4411P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1955) 35 ITR 148 (SC), P. H. Divecha vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC), and CIT vs. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC). 10. The question whether a particular income arising from the termination of one of the agencies of a multi agency concerned is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt is undoubtedly a difficult question to be answered. The difficulty is inherent in the problem itself. Decisions on this question are numerous. But none of them have laid down a…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-3(1), Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S M/S Risabh Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 29/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.(S)29 & 30/Rpr/2017 Co No.(S) 04 & 05/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Risabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Manas Bhawan, Near Adarsh Garage, Opp. Pujari Park, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aaccr4411P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1955) 35 ITR 148 (SC), P. H. Divecha vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC), and CIT vs. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC). 10. The question whether a particular income arising from the termination of one of the agencies of a multi agency concerned is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt is undoubtedly a difficult question to be answered. The difficulty is inherent in the problem itself. Decisions on this question are numerous. But none of them have laid down a…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in 'Karamchand Thapper And Bros. (P.) Ltd. and Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd.(supra). 6. The Bombay High Court dealt with the issue viz., where an assessee made an investment in its 100% subsidiary for business purpose, the loss on sale of inves…

M/S Ace Designers Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner of

In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated

ITA/184/2013HC Karnataka09 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 28

…(SC), ‘KETTLEWELL BULLEN & CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC), ‘GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT AND CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX’, (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC) and ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. BEST & CO. (P,) LTD.’, (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC)]. The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme 11 Court in the aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in ‘KARAMCHAND THAPPER AND Bros. (P.) LTD. AND OBEROI HOTEL (P) LTD. supra. 6. The Bombay High Court dealt with the issue viz., where an assessee made an investment in its 100% subsidiary for business purpose, t…

Butterfly Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (by Successor V.M. Chettiar & Sons India P. Ltd.), Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3079/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 143(3)

…Divecha v. Commissioner of Income-tax 48 ITR 222, Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 53 ITR 261, Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 53 ITR 283 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC) 10. The question whether a particular income arising from the termination of one of the agencies of a multi-agency concerned is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt is undoubtedly a difficult question to be answered. The difficulty is inherent in the problem itself. Decisions on this question are numerous. But none of them have laid down a…

M/S Open Sillicon Research Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2716/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Open Silicon Research Pvt. Ltd. 139/26, Ground Floor, Amar Jyothi Layout, Domlur Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru-560071. … Appellant Pan: Aaaco 5915 B Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Prashanth G.S., C.A. Respondent By : Swapna Das, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bangalore Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S., C.AFor Respondent: Swapna Das, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32

…s and 10 months and thus the expenditure incurred ought to have been apportioned over the period of term of license based on the theory of apportionment. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Best & Co Pvt. Ltd. reported in 60 ITR 11. Page 3 of 7 10. Without prejudice, the Term-Licensed Software Fees needs to be allowed as revenue expenses for the impugned assessment year based on the principles of consistency. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT reported in 193 ITR 321. 11. Without prejudice, the officer ought to have a…

Dy.C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1955) 35 ITR 148 (SC), P. H. Divecha vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC), and CIT vs. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC). 10. The question whether a particular income arising from the termination of one of the agencies of a multi agency concerned is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt is undoubtedly a difficult question to be answered. The difficulty is inherent in the problem itself. Decisions on this question are numerous. But none of them have laid down a…