CIT v. J. Dalmia

149 ITR 215High Court1984#6251 most cited

What is CIT v. J. Dalmia authority for?

An amount received for relinquishing the right to sue or for settlement of disputes is a capital receipt, not assessable as capital gains. This is because the right to sue is considered a 'capital asset' and its relinquishment does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) for the purpose of capital gains.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. J. Dalmia · section 2(47) · capital asset · right to sue · capital receipt · relinquishment of rights · settlement of disputes · section 2(14) · section 45 · transfer

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)transfer of capital assetsection 2(14)section 144aright to receivesection 21section 48section 45section 54section 22section 148a(d)erroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing CIT v. J. Dalmia

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

…,18,930/- from Cinepolis Group on account of relinquishment of rights to sue and settlement of disputes by virtue of settlement agreement dated 12.11.2018 (pages 308 to 345) of the paper books). 20 8.4 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT vs. J. Dalmia 149 ITR 215 (Del. HC) – Revenue’s SLP was dismissed – 189 ITR 122 (SC) held that amounts received by the assessee in pursuance of an arbitral award, whereby the assessee gave up on his claim/right to sue was not assessable as capital gains and was in effect a capital receipt. The relevant extracts of the judgement are reproduced hereunder: "7. We are, there…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 968/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

…re various other High Court Judgments directly on this issue wherein, they have held that a damage on account of right to sue is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Some of the judgments for the sake of clarity are as under:- 1. C.I.T. Vs. Dalmia (1984) [149 ITR 215] (Del.) Facts: Pursuant to agreement to sell, taxpayer acquired right to the property under construction from builder. Final sale deed was to be executed on completion of construction. Agreement provided purchaser with a right to specific performance. On builder's failure to execute sale deed post completion of construction, taxpayer filed suit f…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

…re various other High Court Judgments directly on this issue wherein, they have held that a damage on account of right to sue is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Some of the judgments for the sake of clarity are as under:- 1. C.I.T. Vs. Dalmia (1984) [149 ITR 215] (Del.) Facts: Pursuant to agreement to sell, taxpayer acquired right to the property under construction from builder. Final sale deed was to be executed on completion of construction. Agreement provided purchaser with a right to specific performance. On builder's failure to execute sale deed post completion of construction, taxpayer filed suit f…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Rasik Kunverji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1000/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

…re various other High Court Judgments directly on this issue wherein, they have held that a damage on account of right to sue is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Some of the judgments for the sake of clarity are as under:- 1. C.I.T. Vs. Dalmia (1984) [149 ITR 215] (Del.) Facts: Pursuant to agreement to sell, taxpayer acquired right to the property under construction from builder. Final sale deed was to be executed on completion of construction. Agreement provided purchaser with a right to specific performance. On builder's failure to execute sale deed post completion of construction, taxpayer filed suit f…

Virendra Bhavanji Gala, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 263

…re various other High Court Judgments directly on this issue wherein, they have held that a damage on account of right to sue is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Some of the judgments for the sake of clarity are as under:- 1. C.I.T. Vs. Dalmia (1984) [149 ITR 215] (Del.) Facts: Pursuant to agreement to sell, taxpayer acquired right to the property under construction from builder. Final sale deed was to be executed on completion of construction. Agreement provided purchaser with a right to specific performance. On builder's failure to execute sale deed post completion of 22 Shri Virendra Bhavanji Gala cons…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Datla Shanti, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 33/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.33/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Smt. Datla Shanti, Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AJFPD 6650 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri I. Kama Sastry, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue by :…

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

…n the case of CIT vs. Best & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the aforesaid case was followed and it was held that compensation received towards loss of agency was 3 revenue receipt as the loss of agency was a normal trading loss. In the case of CIT Vs. J. Dalma (1984) 149 ITR 215, a property was under construction of which M/s Satish Kumar Sood & Sons were the owners. They entered into an agreement to sell the property to Sh Krishan Prashad on 29.11.1966 for a consideration of Rs. 4,95,000/-. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was received in cash as earnest money. The construction was completed in accordance with certain specificatio…

ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi vs. Akash Poddar, New Delhi

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

ITA 4344/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 17(3)(iii)

…the shares have to be allotted @ 7500 for each year of completed service. And since, the assessee has completed only two completed years of service, for the purpose of taxation. Keeping in view the jurisprudence laid down as in the cases of CIT Vs. J. Dalmia (149 ITR 215) (Del.), Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (158 ITR 636) (Guj.), Bhojison Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (173 ITD 436), and ACIT Vs. Jackie Shroff (172 ITD 425) with regard to taxation of amount received as compensation for giving up the “Right to sue” and also keeping in view of the principles of real income, eligible income, receivable i…

Sri Chandrashekar Naganagouda Patil, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1984/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Mallaha Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1984(Bang)/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Shri Chandrashekar Naganagouda Patil, No.GR2, Lavina Courts 67, 7th Cross, RMV Extension, Sadhashivanagar, Bangalore-560 080 PAN No.ACFPP7579J Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri Mallaha Rao, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT Date of hearing : 25-06-2020 Date of pronouncement : 29-06-2020 O R D E R PER N.V.VASUDEVA…

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

…. R. Dalmia [1987] 163 ITR 517, considered the question as to whether the right acquired by the assessee under agreements to sell immovable property was not a proprietary right. Following the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. J. Dalmia [1984] 149 ITR 215, it was held that the right acquired by the assessee under the agreements to sell had to be held not to be a proprietary right and, hence, not a capital asset. In the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court the facts were that one 'K' had entered into an agreement with contractors for the construction of 8 Shri Jaikishan Atalram Rupani a buildi…

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

…Court in the case of (i) Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj.), (ii) CIT vs. Hiralal Manila I Mody 131 ITR 421 (Guj.), (ii) 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 and thereby deleted the addition as made by the Ld. A.O. in the assessment order and copy of the Hon’ble ITAT order dated 29/08/2017 for AY 2009- 10 has already been provided to the Ld.CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. Popular Estate Man…

Shri. Dev Kumar Roy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2250/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

…jay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom), CIT vs. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla & Ors. (1992) 195 ITR 28 (Bom), Rustom Spinners Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Ors. (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) and CIT vs. J. Dalmia (1984) 149 ITR 215 (Del). 12. The Assessee also contended that the single or isolated transaction of relinquishment of right under an agreement to acquire immovable property cannot be regarded as adventure in the nature of trade. In this regard the Assessee pointed out before CIT(A) that it had never indulged in any transactions in the past and the intention at th…

Chheda Housing Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 86/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Chheda Housing Addl. Cit-32(1) Development Corporation 2Nd Floor, C-11, Pratyakshkar 109-111, Goyal Shopping Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Centre, Opp. Railway Station, Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaefc1484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram With Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (Ar) Respondent By : Shri H.N. Singh Cit –Dr With Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram with Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (AR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh CIT –DR with Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.DR)
Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 254(1)

…submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions : (i) Bhojison Infrastructure (P) Ltd Vs ITO [2018] 99 taxmann.com 26 (Ahmedabad Tribunal), (ii) Caddell Weaving Mills Co. (P) Ltd Vs CIT 249 ITR 265(Bombay), (iii) CIT Vs J Dalmia (149 ITR 215 Delhi), (iv) Bharat Forge Co Ltd Vs CIT (205 ITR 339 Bombay), (v) CIT Vs Abbasbhoy A Dehgamwalla (195 ITR 28 Mumbai (vi) CIT Vs Asoka Marketing Ltd (164 ITR 664 Calcutta) (vii) DCIT Vs Ýogen Sinhgwi (ITA No.477/M/2011 dated 01.11.2017) (viii) ACIT Vs Jackie Shroff (2018) 194 TTJ 760 (Mumbai) (ix) CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd (325 ITR 422 SC) (x)…

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

…. R. Dalmia [1987] 163 ITR 517, considered the question as to whether the right acquired by the assessee under agreements to sell immovable property was not a proprietary right. Following the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. J. Dalmia [1984] 149 ITR 215, it was held that the right acquired by the assessee under the agreements to sell had to be held not to be a proprietary right and, hence, not a capital asset. In the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court the facts were that one 'K' had entered into an agreement with contractors for the 11 ITA No. 1028 Mum 2018-Shri Girish P. Rupani. constr…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5884/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…61 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265 (Mum) etc. in support of their contention that where the payment was made to compensate a person for cancellation of contract, it is 7 in the nature of capital receipt. On a careful perusal of these orders, we find tha…

Mr. Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…61 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265 (Mum) etc. in support of their contention that where the payment was made to compensate a person for cancellation of contract, it is 7 in the nature of capital receipt. On a careful perusal of these orders, we find tha…

Bhojison Infreastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2449/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2449/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, A.R
Section 6

…gh Court: i. Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 636 (Gujarat) ii. CIT vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. [1986] 164 ITR 664 (Calcutta) ITA No. 2449/Ahd/16 [Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 - 5 - iii. CIT vs. J. Dalmia [1985] 149 ITR 215 (Delhi) iv. Shri Sekhar G. Patel L/h. of Late Shri Govindbhai C. Patel ITA No. 1997/Ahd/2010 (Ahmedabad – Trib) v. Popular Estate Management Ltd. vs. ITO (AY: 2009-10) ITA No. 212/Ahd/2014 (Ahmedabad – Trib) vi. Popular Estate Management Ltd. vs. ITO (AY: 2008-09) ITA No. 3116/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad – Trib) vii. Saytam Food Specialties (P) Ltd. v. D…

D vs. Dishti Industries Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1277/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 43(1)

…Sri Nath 268 ITR 436 (Mad.) 10.2 Further, he submitted that the decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the cases of Sterling Construction and Investments 374 ITR 474 (Bom.), Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla 195 ITR 28 (Bom.), CIT Vs. J. Dalmia 149 ITR 215 (Delhi), Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. 205 ITR 339 (Bom.), Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 903 (SC) and Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 325 ITR 422 (SC) are all distinguishable on facts. Making a (supra) Ld. DR critically explained stating that the said case is the one, where the source of income is terminated whereas in the present case, it is the case of surr…