CIT v. Mrs. Grace Collis & Others

322 ITR 35High Court2010#20596 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Mrs. Grace Collis & Others

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…ccount of failure of applicability of computation provision. The Hon’ble High Court referred to decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Wvg. Mills Co (P) Ltd. (Supra). v) The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of S. Zoraster and Co. V/s CIT 322 ITR 35 had on occasion to consider the taxability of receipt of Rs.20,000 received by vendee on default of the purchaser as per agreement for sell of Prem Prakash Talkies. The Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decision of Apex Court in the case of Travancore Rubber and Tea Co Ltd. V CIT 243 ITR 158 held that such receipt is capital receipt. Such…

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ADD. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. R. A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 40Section 80I

…guaranteed by the Manufacturer being violation and breach of contract. Realizing the breach, the assessee Company was paid compensation of Rs. 33,87,883/- by M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in the case of S. Zoraster & Co. Vs. CIT (2010) 322 ITR 35 (Raj) has held that amount received as compensation on breach of contract is capital receipt, not subject to levy of tax. Ld. AO was, therefore, not justified in ignoring the judgment of Hon’ble 6 M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd. Vs ACIT, jaipur jurisdictional High Court and in taxing the capital receipt of Rs. 33,87,883/-. Otherwise also for compen…

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

…[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. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd [273 ITR 1] (SC) ix) Syndicate Bank Ltd v. ACIT [(1985) 155 ITR 68] Further according to him there could be no capital gains since there was no transfer of any capital asset by virtue of agreement for sale. According to him no cos…

DCIT- CC-44, MUMBAI vs. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4922/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Motwani

Section 143(3)

…source of income , which is amount connected with the profit making apparatus rather than a receipt in the course of profit earning process and thus, liquidated damages were not a revenue receipt .The other decisions in the matter of S. Zoraster & Co., (2010) 322 ITR 35(Raj.) reiterated the above laid principle and held that Amount received as compensation for breach of contract is a capital receipt. 4.2.3 Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws, the liquidated damages are received as compensation for sterilisation of the profit earning source. Hence, the same is capital receipt. 4.3 This ground…