CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co.

86 ITR 29Supreme Court of India1972#13033 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 43(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co.

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 5,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.786/Kol/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2008-2009) Essel Mining & Industries Vs Addl. Cit, Range-5, Kolkata Limited, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street,Kolkata-17 Pan No. :Aaace6607L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Akkaldudhwewala, Fca राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal After The Hon'Ble Calcutta High Court Vide Order Dated 17.11.2021 Passed In The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed U/S 260A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Ia No. Ga/1/2017 (Old No. Ga/247/2017) In Ita 5/274/2017 Referred The Issue Back To The Tribunal For Fresh Consideration To Decide The Legal Issue In The Light Of Decision By Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Saurashtra Cements Ltd. (2010) 325 Itr 422 (Sc) After Affording Both The Sides A Fair & Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing. The Hon'Ble High Court Directed The Tribunal To Decide Whether Compensation Received By The Assessee From Suzlon Energy Limited On Account Of Failure Of Performance Guarantee Parameters Of The Capital Assets Namely Wind Turbine Generators, Was On Revenue Account For Reducing Loss Incurred In The Course Of Business Or A Capital Receipt Outside The Purview Of Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri AkkalDudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 43

…Rs.5,16,27,109/- and financial loss of Rs. 3,09,76,266/-. The issues was whether the compensation received on account of technical loss is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co., (1972) 86 ITR 29 (SC), and was of the view that this receipt is taxable as income. 13 Before the Id. First Appellate Authority, the assessee relied on the following case-law and claimed that the compensation received for technical loss for was on capital account:- CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement [2012] 325 ITR 422 (SC) Xpro India Ltd. [ITA No. 214/Kol/2011, order dt. 23…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 113/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 2Section 250

…r the compensation received on account of technical loss is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of ipt. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co., CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co., [1972] 86 ITR 29 (SC), and was of the view that this receipt is taxable as income. and was of the view that this receipt is taxable as income. and was of the view that this receipt is taxable as income. Before the ld. First Appellate Authority, th Before the ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee relied on the following case e assessee relied on the following…

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)

…held that compensation was received in lieu of loss of profit and therefore held as Revenue receipt, placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. M/s. Gangathar Baggnath (1972) 86 ITR 19 and CIT vs. Manna Ramji (1972) 86 ITR 29. Further, the Assessing Officer taking note of the fact that property was sold by the assessee company to the same party i.e. M/s. Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd to whom the property was leased for 99 years, inferred that it is a part of sale consideration. :- 5 -: Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the 5. Ld.CIT(A) who vide…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. TRIMEX SANDS PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…Goet’s case is misplaced. Aggrieved by the disallowance made by the AO, the assessee 16 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co. (86 ITR 29), observed that the receipt of damage by the assessee has been treated as a taxable revenue receipt and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, assessee received the impugned amount from M/s.Walchandna…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. TRIMEX SANDS PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…Goet’s case is misplaced. Aggrieved by the disallowance made by the AO, the assessee 16 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co. (86 ITR 29), observed that the receipt of damage by the assessee has been treated as a taxable revenue receipt and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, assessee received the impugned amount from M/s.Walchandna…

TRIMEX SANDS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…Goet’s case is misplaced. Aggrieved by the disallowance made by the AO, the assessee 16 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co. (86 ITR 29), observed that the receipt of damage by the assessee has been treated as a taxable revenue receipt and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, assessee received the impugned amount from M/s.Walchandna…

TRIMEX SANDS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…Goet’s case is misplaced. Aggrieved by the disallowance made by the AO, the assessee 16 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co. (86 ITR 29), observed that the receipt of damage by the assessee has been treated as a taxable revenue receipt and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, assessee received the impugned amount from M/s.Walchandna…

ITO 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. MARUDHAR MUDRA P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3166/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2007-08 Ito-4(2)(4), M/S Marudhar Mudra Pvt. Room No.647, 6Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ M.K. Road, 101-102, Chartered House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 293-297, Dr. C.H.Street, Mumbai-400020 Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcm5764F

Section 73

…tal asset. 5.5 Similar views have been also given by various courts and such decisions may be cited as under:- " CIT vs Smt T P Sidhwa (1982) 133 ITR 840 (Boni) " CIT vs Bombay Burma Trading Corporation (1987) 161 ITR 386(5C) " CIT vs Manna Ramji & Co.(1972) 86 ITR 29(5C) 5.6 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that the LAO has wrongly charged compensation received by the appellant from cancellation of allotment rights in the premises allotted to the appellant under the head 'Income from Business or Profession". The appellant has offer…

CIT v. Manna Ramji & Co. (86 ITR 29) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax