CIT v. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460)

MOHAMMED FAKHRE ALAM SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-52, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6513/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Mohammed Fakhre Alam The Assessing Officer, Shaikh, Ward-17(2)(3), New Usmaniya Washing, Vs. Mumbai. Noor Mansion, 111, Janjikar Street, Crawford Market, Mumbai-400003. Pan : Bhops3293R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana

Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

…however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it's nature in the hands of the Assessment year: 2007-08 recipient. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460), "it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer". The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really relevant in determining the nature of receipt…

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMABI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 418/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250

…in nature. This argument however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it's nature in the hands of the recipient. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460), "it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer". The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really relevant in determining the nature of receipt…

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 417/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250

…in nature. This argument however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it's nature in the hands of the recipient. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460), "it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer". The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really relevant in determining the nature of receipt…

KUNNAMA V BALAKRISHNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2577/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(2) 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, Mig Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepb0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee, Despite The Fact That The Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On Previous Five (5) Occasions. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.25,21,508/- Made By Ao By Treating The Hardship Compensation Fund As “Dividend Income” Received From The Residential Society.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 147

…in nature. This argument however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it’s nature in the hands of the recipient. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460), “it is now well settled that, in order to 6 A.Y. 2011-12 Smt. Kunnama V. Balakrishna find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer”. The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really re…

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

ITA 15/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…in an earlier year is not to be equated with the decision of the subject relation to a similar amount, which is pending consideration in a subsequent year.” 6.4 Further, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Beharilal Singha (82 ITR 460) (SC) that “a question of assessment to income tax would arise for consideration only in the hands of the recipient and, therefore, its character as income taxable or not must be determined only to the reference of legal position of the recipient. Thus, the question whether a particular receipt is in ITA No.1540/Bang/2018 & M/s. Bellary Iron Ores…

M/S BELLARY IRON-ORES PVT LTD ,BELLARY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , HOSPET

ITA 1540/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

…in an earlier year is not to be equated with the decision of the subject relation to a similar amount, which is pending consideration in a subsequent year.” 6.4 Further, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Beharilal Singha (82 ITR 460) (SC) that “a question of assessment to income tax would arise for consideration only in the hands of the recipient and, therefore, its character as income taxable or not must be determined only to the reference of legal position of the recipient. Thus, the question whether a particular receipt is in ITA No.1540/Bang/2018 & M/s. Bellary Iron Ores…

RAMANAN SIVARAMAN ERANATH VENGALI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAX WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the addition of INR 97,32,625/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and Ground No. 2 to 4 are allowed in terms of the aforesaid

ITA 807/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56

…nature. This argument however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining its nature in the hands of the recipient. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kamal Behari Lal Singha [1971] 82 ITR 460, "it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer". The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really relevant in determining the nature of receipt…

BSR INFRATECH INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 697/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 199Section 234ASection 270ASection 43Section 43C

…ecision of the subject BSR Infratech India Ltd., Bangalore Page 21 of 38 relation to a similar amount, which is pending consideration in a subsequent year.” 6.4 Further, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Beharilal Singha (82 ITR 460) (SC) that “a question of assessment to income tax would arise for consideration only in the hands of the recipient and, therefore, its character as income taxable or not must be determined only to the reference of legal position of the recipient. Thus, the question whether a particular receipt is in the nature of income or not and would be liable…

KISHORE D PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3796/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shri Kishre D. P Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 501, Ashar Villa, Plot Ward No. 21(2)(3) Mumbai Vs. No. 242, Near Taiml Sangham Hall Sion (E), Mumbai-400022 Pan No.Aslps3244H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri. Rs Bindra, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. B.S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 12-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45Section 56

…however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it's nature in the hands of the Assessment year: 2007-08 recipient. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460), "it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer". The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really relevant in determining the nature of receipt…

RAJNIKANT D SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 4424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Ms. Kirti R. KamdarFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

Section 24

…t however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of 17 Rajnikant D. Shroff payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it‟s nature in the hands of the recipient. As observed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460), “it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer”. The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really relevant in determining the nature of receipt…

JITENDRA KUMAR SONEJA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 291/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45

…in nature. This argument however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it’s nature in the hands of the recipient. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460), “it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer”. The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really relevant in determining the nature of receipt…

MAHESH J JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1560/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Mahesh J. Jhaveri, Ito 21(1)(3) 401/02 Purna Urvi Ns Rd 2, बनाम/ Swastik Society, Vile Parle(W) Mumbai Vs. Mumbai -400056 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaepj8678F

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45

…s in nature. This argument however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it’s nature in the hands of the recipient. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal BehariLal Singha (82 ITR 460), “it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer”. The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really 6 Mahesh J. Jhaveri relevant in determining…

SHRIMAND PADMARAJA R. KADAMBANDA, DHULIA vs. THE COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

C.A. No.-002201-002203 - 1979Supreme Court22 Apr 1992

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

Section 15Section 15(1)Section 15(1)(d)Section 2(24)Section 4

…. Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi and Anr. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II, 49 ITR 594, approved. E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 26 ITR 27 at 49 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kamal Behari Lal Singha, 82 ITR 460, Chandroji Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 77 ITR 743 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shaw Wallace & Co., (1932) ILR 59 Cal. 1343 at p. 1352, referred to. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2201- 2203 of 1979. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.1978 of the Bombay High Court in I.T. Ref. N…

CIT v. Kamal Behari Lal Singha

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Kamal Behari Lal Singha