CIT v. Hiralal Manilal Mody

131 ITR 421High Court1981#14893 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hiralal Manilal Mody

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)

…n the nature of damages for breach of agreement, which is capital in nature. Therefore, it is personal in nature and cannot be brought to tax. Reliance in this regard can be made on following decisions: - M.J. Associates i) CIT vs. hiralal Motilal Mody [1981]131 ITR 421 (Guj.) ii) CIT vs. Asoka Marketing Ltd. [1987] 164 ITR 664 (Cal.) iii) CIT vs. Dhanraj Dugur [1982] 137 ITR 350 (Cal.) 14. Therefore, the compensation received by the appellant firm for entering into the termination agreement is not taxable as the same is in the nature of capital receipt. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are here…

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)

JAIKISHIN ATALRAM RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1

ITA 6856/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 54Section 54F

…see anything in terms of money and so the question of computation of a capital gain could not arise. This decision was rendered upon its own facts. 13. There remains for consideration a decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Hiralal Manilal Mody [1981] 131 ITR 421, which Mr. Zaveri cited. The question in this case was whether the damages received by the assessee for breach by the seller of an agreement to purchase immovable property was a revenue receipt. The assessee, had been held by the Tribunal not to be a dealer in immovable property. The Court found that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal tes…

POPULAR ESTATE MANAGEMENT LTD.,(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PIONEER TECHNOPARK LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2703/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2703/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) Popular Estate Management The Dcit बनाम/ Ltd. Circle-3(1)(1) Vs. (Previously Known As Pioneer Ahmedabad Technopark Ltd.) 81, New York Tower – A Opp. Muktidham Derasar Sg Highway Thaltej Cross Road Ahmedabad -380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 0617 P .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dhiren Shah & Shri Nupur Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Subhas Bain Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Subhas Bain CIT-DR

Section 6Section 68

…llant company not assessable either as capital gains or business income in view of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Jurisdictional High Court in the case of (i) Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj.), (ii) CIT vs. Hiralal Manilal Mody 131 ITR 421 (Guj.), (iii) Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. 164 ITR 664 (Cal.), (iv) CIT vs. J. Dalmia 149 ITR 215 (Del.) & (v) Satyam Food Specialties (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur [2015] 57 taxmann.com 194. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that Hon’bl…

SHRI GIRISH P. RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is

ITA 1028/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanshri Girish P. Rupani Acit-23(1) Room No. 122, 1St Floor, Makhija Chambers, 196, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Vs. Pan: Aaapr6723P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54F

…ssee anything in terms of money and so the question of computation of a capital gain could not arise. This decision was rendered upon its own facts. 13. There remains for consideration a decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Hiralal Manilal Mody [1981] 131 ITR 421, which Mr. Zaveri cited. The question in this case was whether the damages received by the assessee for breach by the seller of an agreement to purchase immovable property was a revenue receipt. The assessee, had been held by the Tribunal not to be a dealer in immovable property. The Court found that the Tribunal had applied the correct legal tes…

KHODAY ESHWARSA & SONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III

Section 263

…ved by an agreement holder through a compromise agreement could ITA No.1117/Bang/2010 & ITA.614/Bang/2010 Page - 8 not be considered as either revenue income or capital gains. Reliance was placed on the following judgments : i) CIT v. Hiralal Manilal Mody [131 ITR 421] (Guj) ii) CIT v. Vishaka Marketing Ltd [(1987) 164 ITR 664] iii) Salgaonkar Mining Industries v. CIT [228 ITR 183] iv) CIT v. Dhanraj Dugar [137 ITR 350] (Cal) v) CIT v. Mrs. Grace Collis & Others [248 ITR 323] (SC) vi) S. Zoraster & Co. V. CIT [322 ITR 35] (Raj) vii ) Travancore Rubber & Tea & Co. Ltd v. CIT [243 ITR 158] (SC) viii) CIT v. D. P…