Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 145A, Section 14A, Section 234B, Section 234C.

CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (161 ITR 524)

Q: What is CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. authority for?

Income does not arise or accrue when the right to receive payment or compensation is inchoate, contingent, or in dispute, as such a right does not create a debt. This principle determines the correct year of taxability, particularly for compensation under litigation.

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.?

71 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (161 ITR 524), spanning 2000 to 2025.

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

ITA 334/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 153A

…rn’ accrued from the side of the present assessee make such receipts inchoate receipts is not acceptable as the MOU created a contractual obligation which was enforceable under the law. In the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC), the issue involved with regard to right to receive a compensation were considered to be inchoate and contingent as the same would not create debt. 7.13 Certainly, the burden lies upon the Department to prove that a receipt is to be taxed as income. However, when the assessee has claimed a receipt to be income and then wants to change the s…

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly

ITA 333/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 153A

…rn’ accrued from the side of the present assessee make such receipts inchoate receipts is not acceptable as the MOU created a contractual obligation which was enforceable under the law. In the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524 (SC), the issue involved with regard to right to receive a compensation were considered to be inchoate and contingent as the same would not create debt. 7.13 Certainly, the burden lies upon the Department to prove that a receipt is to be taxed as income. However, when the assessee has claimed a receipt to be income and then wants to change the s…

RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

…eld that the law is thus well settled that where the right to receive payment is in dispute, no income will arise or accrue. In this case reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524. 4.8 The Hon'ble 1.T.A.T. Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in assessee's case for Assessment Year 2005-06 after a detailed deliberation had allowed the assessee's claim of deduction vide order dated 27-03-2009. The Id. CIT(A) has also decided this issue in assessee's favour for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2014-15. The departmental appeal on this ground has al…

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, NEHRU SEHKAR BHAWAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)

…eld that the law is thus well settled that where the right to receive payment is in dispute, no income will arise or accrue. In this case reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524. 4.8 The Hon'ble 1.T.A.T. Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in assessee's case for Assessment Year 2005-06 after a detailed deliberation had allowed the assessee's claim of deduction vide order dated 27-03-2009. The Id. CIT(A) has also decided this issue in assessee's favour for Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2014-15. The departmental appeal on this ground has al…

REKHA KISHORE BARI,DHULE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER-NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1667/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3GSection 56(2)

…of taxability of interest where litigation is pending, it is pertinent to take note of certain judicial pronouncements which decides the year of taxability where litigation is pending, as under a. CIT Vs. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC)- legal Paper book pg no. 81-84 b. CIT Vs. Abdul Mannan Shah Mohammed [2001] 248 ITR 614 (Bombay)- legal Paper book pg no. 85-86 c. New Friends Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 39 (Punjab & Haryana)- legal Paper book pg no. 87- 90 5.15. Your Honour's, since, sec. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145 (1) (erstwhile 145A(b) of th…

TAYYABABI ABDUL RAHEMAN SAYYAD,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 431/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.429 To 431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Vs The Income Tax Officer, Sayyad, Ward-2, Latur. Hamal Galli Narsinggirani, Latur – 413512. Pan: Cubps2682D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, All Dated 08.01.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. All These Three Were Heard Together As Issue Involved Was Common. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Ita No.431/Pun/2024 For

Section 23Section 250Section 28Section 57

…refore, ld.AR submitted that the said amount has not accrued to the assessee. Ld.AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Sayyad, Latur(03 appeals)[A] Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524. It is observed that the documents filed as additional evidence goes to the root of the issue to be decided. However, these documents assessee could not file before the AO/CIT(A). We are convinced that there was sufficient cause for not filing these documents before the AO/ld.CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances of the case, we admit the addi…

TAYYABABI ABDUL RAHEMAN SAYYAD,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 430/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.429 To 431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Vs The Income Tax Officer, Sayyad, Ward-2, Latur. Hamal Galli Narsinggirani, Latur – 413512. Pan: Cubps2682D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, All Dated 08.01.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. All These Three Were Heard Together As Issue Involved Was Common. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Ita No.431/Pun/2024 For

Section 23Section 250Section 28Section 57

…refore, ld.AR submitted that the said amount has not accrued to the assessee. Ld.AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Sayyad, Latur(03 appeals)[A] Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524. It is observed that the documents filed as additional evidence goes to the root of the issue to be decided. However, these documents assessee could not file before the AO/CIT(A). We are convinced that there was sufficient cause for not filing these documents before the AO/ld.CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances of the case, we admit the addi…

TAYYABABI ABDUL RAHEMAN SAYYAD,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 429/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.429 To 431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Vs The Income Tax Officer, Sayyad, Ward-2, Latur. Hamal Galli Narsinggirani, Latur – 413512. Pan: Cubps2682D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, All Dated 08.01.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. All These Three Were Heard Together As Issue Involved Was Common. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take Ita No.431/Pun/2024 For

Section 23Section 250Section 28Section 57

…refore, ld.AR submitted that the said amount has not accrued to the assessee. Ld.AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Tayyababi Abdul Raheman Sayyad, Latur(03 appeals)[A] Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd., 161 ITR 524. It is observed that the documents filed as additional evidence goes to the root of the issue to be decided. However, these documents assessee could not file before the AO/CIT(A). We are convinced that there was sufficient cause for not filing these documents before the AO/ld.CIT(A). In these facts and circumstances of the case, we admit the addi…

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…part to meet contingent liabilities, and it was held that this amount was neither received nor accrued in favour of the assessee. • The Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Housing I.T.A. No.6866/Del/2018 21 & Land Development Trust Ltd. 161 ITR 524, where a similar view was taken. • The Madras High Court decision in the case of PPN Power Generating Co (P) Ltd vs. CIT 275 Taxman 143 in support of the alternative submission that in the subsequent year the amount had been offered for taxation… • The Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Anup Engineering Ltd vs. CIT 247 ITR 457. • Cases…

M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 174/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Ayushajay Construction Pr.Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore. बनाम/ 3/3, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacca 5523 B Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

…re ITA No.174/Ind/2023 – AY 2018-19 approach of assessee of declaring income upon final adjudication by Dhule District Court / Delhi High Court is very much correct and fully supported by (i) CIT Vs. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC), (ii) CIT Vs. L. Sambashiva Reddy (2015) 234 Taxman 775 (Karnataka HC), and (iii) ITO Vs. Shri Chandi Ram ITA No. 11/JP/15 order dated 28.02.2017 of ITAT, Jaipur. Thirdly, Ld. AR submitted that even if we assume that there are two possible views qua the year of taxability of the impugned amounts and the AO accepted one of the possible vie…

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 22/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…och/2014 Page 7 ITANo. 22/Coch/ 2023 (AY 2015-16) High Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (d) Star India P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT – 311 ITR (ST) 235 (Mumbai). (e) Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath – 171 ITR 417 (All.); (f) Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. – 161 ITR 524 (SC); (g) Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 225 ITR 746 (SC); (h) Mantra Tanta Yantra Vigyan vs. CIT – 300 ITR 140 (Raj.); and (i) Guardian Industries Corpn. vs. Assistant Director of Income6-tax – 7 DTR 594 (Del.). are also supports the plea of the assessee. The accrual has been dealt with in the relied judgments. Hence, under the given set of fa…

RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 574/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…ional compensation which was permitted to be withdrawn on furnishing of security was not taxable at that stage. In an appeal, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, citing the decision given in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC) wherein it was held that when the Government has appealed against the award and the additional amount of compensation was deposited in the court, it was not taxable at that stage as the 4 ITA.No.574/PUN/2020 Sh Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur. additional compensation would not accrue as income when it was specifically disputed by the Government…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

ITTA/166/2006HC Telangana16 Nov 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 147Section 147(1)

…ITAs 166, 168, 243, 778/2006 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: 28.08.2012 PRONOUNCED ON: 31.08.2012 + ITA 166/2006 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus M/S. UBEROI SONS (MACHINES) LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Satyen Sethi with Sh. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates. ITA 168/2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus M/S. UBEROI SONS (MACHINES) LTD.…

SPRINGER NATURE CUSTOMER SERVICES CENTRE GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, INTERNATIONALO TAXATION, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2534/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Springer Nature Customer Services Vs Jcit Centre Gmbh (Earlier Known As (International Taxation), Springer Customer Centre Gmbh), Circle-3(1)(2), 7Th Floor, Vijaya Building, New Delhi. 17-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aascs1092B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, Bhuwan Dhooper & Vibhu Gupta, Advocates Respondent By Ms. Rashmita Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2022

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 9(1)(vi)

…hetical income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents: • E. D. Sassoon & Co. vs CIT: [1954] 26 ITR 27 (SC) • CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai: [1965] 56 ITR 42 (SC) • CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.: [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC) • CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.: [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) • Godhra Electricity Company V CIT: [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC) • CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.: (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) 12 | P a g e Ground No. 4: Interest charged under section 234A and 234B of the Act 4.1 This ground is consequential in nature. Ground No. 5: Penalty proceedings initia…

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Standard Chartered Bank v. ACIT – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AABCS4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) ADIT (IT)– 2(3) v. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1st Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 PAN: AABCS4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pard…

HIGH RANGE FOODS PVT LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

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

ITA 64/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR

Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.64/Coch/2022 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/s.High Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner 23/3030, Elamkulam of Income-tax, v. Cheruparambath Road Corporate Circle 1(2) Kochi. Kadavanthra Ernakulam – 682 020. PAN : AAACH6076L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.V.M.Veeramani, CA Respondent by : Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2022 Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is dire…

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

…lakhs is disputed and the right of the assessee in the said amount is inchoate and therefore, the same also cannot be brought to tax during the year under consideration.-CIT vs. Hindustan Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, 1 DTR 366 (Mum. – Trib.), wherein the Tribunal held as under:- “Assessee had entered into…

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 296/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

…lakhs is disputed and the right of the assessee in the said amount is inchoate and therefore, the same also cannot be brought to tax during the year under consideration.-CIT vs. Hindustan Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, 1 DTR 366 (Mum. – Trib.), wherein the Tribunal held as under:- “Assessee had entered into…

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 295/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 153A

…lakhs is disputed and the right of the assessee in the said amount is inchoate and therefore, the same also cannot be brought to tax during the year under consideration.-CIT vs. Hindustan Housing &. Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 58 CTR (SC) 179 : (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC) relied on. Conclusion Where the entire amount payable under the agreement was in dispute, no part of it could be brought to tax in the hands of assessee, even if the part payment is actually received.” (iii) Bhavesh Estates (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, 1 DTR 366 (Mum. – Trib.), wherein the Tribunal held as under:- “Assessee had entered into…

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 37

…income. For this purpose the Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the judgments of Paragon Constructions (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 274 ITR 413 (Delhi) following the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC). Having stated this the Ld. CIT(A) further stated that the same argument can be extended to issues relating to expenditure as well. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) held that during the pendency of a judicial dispute, the amount can be treated as neither determined nor crystallized and hence the same cannot be allowed as a business expenditure. Appellan…

CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.

What is CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

FIITJEE LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, NEHRU SEHKAR BHAWAN, JAIPUR

REKHA KISHORE BARI,DHULE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER-NFAC, DELHI

TAYYABABI ABDUL RAHEMAN SAYYAD,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 LATUR, LATUR

TAYYABABI ABDUL RAHEMAN SAYYAD,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 LATUR, LATUR

TAYYABABI ABDUL RAHEMAN SAYYAD,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 LATUR, LATUR

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE

M/S HIGH RANGE FOODS PRIVATE LTD,KOCHI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(3), KOCHI

RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

SPRINGER NATURE CUSTOMER SERVICES CENTRE GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, INTERNATIONALO TAXATION, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

HIGH RANGE FOODS PVT LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI