CIT v. Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons.

130 ITR 863High Court1981#9975 most cited

What is CIT v. Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons. authority for?

Income received by a partner on retirement from a firm is not taxable as capital gains.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons · section 148 · section 45 · section 48(1) · retirement of partner · capital gains tax · income tax

Also reported as

4 Taxmann 76

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 45Section 48(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons.

ITO, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Arka Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.58/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd Ward 1 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafca7411H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 23/11/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 1 Day By The Revenue In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. We Have Heard The Learned Dr As Well As The Learned Ar On The Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Objected For Condonation Of Delay Of One Day In Filing

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 148Section 45

…(ITA No.826 of 2023 (Gujarat High Court). 9) Shroff Eye Centre (ITA No.1560/Del/2012) ITAT Delhi 10) Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531) (S.C) Real Income Theory 11) RSM & Co. (125 ITFD 243) 12) Sunil J. Kinariwala (259 ITR 10) (S.C) 13) Nariman Bhurncha & Son (130 ITR 863)(Bom) 14) CIT vs. M/s. Shoorgi VBallabh Das & Co. (46 ITR 144(S.C) 15. ACIT vs. Emaar MGF Constructions (P) Ltd (ITA No.1734/Del/2016) ITAT Delhi. 16) Dinesh Vazi Rani – 445 ITR 110 (Bom) 17) Kaushalya Devi (Deceased) through legal representative vs. CIT (4504ITR 136) (Del.) 18) CIT vs. Shakuntla Kantilal (190 ITR 56) (Bom.) 19) Gopeenath Paul (1…

Loramitra Rath, Kairapari Kotsahi, Tangi vs. DCIT (Circle-1(1), Cuttack

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…C) 20 6 K.A. Ramachar v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 25 (SC) 21 24 K.A. Ramachar v. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 25 (SC) 22 5 Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain vs. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 1 (SC) 23 16 Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 323 (SC) 24 24 Nariman B. Bharucha’s case (1981) 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 25 9 P. C. Mullick vs. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 206 (SC) 26 13 Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC) 27 2 Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria vs. CIT [1933] 1 ITR 135 (SC) 28 13 29 Rajkot District Gopalak Co-op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd. vs. CIT 204 5 ITR 590 (Gujarat) RSM & Co. Vs. Addl. CIT (2010) 125 ITD 243 (Mum.) 30 24 Shroff Ey…

ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi vs. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Gurugram

In the result, the appeal filed for Revenue for AY 2013-14 stands dismissed, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by the assessee are al...

ITA 5123/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Setha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…dgement in CIT v. V.N.V. Devara Julu Chetty & Co. (18 ITR 357) (Mad) (xi) Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgement in CIT v. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe (190 ITR 198) (Bom) (xii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgement in CIT v. Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons (130 ITR 863) (Bom) 19. Upon careful consideration, we note that ITAT in assessee’s own case vide order dated 15.01.2021 in ITA No.3715/Del/2017 for AY 2011- 12 and ITA No.3716/Del/2017 for AY 2012-13 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee as under :- “7.2 As far as the issue of disallowance of payment to Retired partners in Assessment Year 2011…

Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed for Revenue for AY 2013-14 stands dismissed, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by the assessee are al...

ITA 4617/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Setha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…dgement in CIT v. V.N.V. Devara Julu Chetty & Co. (18 ITR 357) (Mad) (xi) Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgement in CIT v. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe (190 ITR 198) (Bom) (xii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgement in CIT v. Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons (130 ITR 863) (Bom) 19. Upon careful consideration, we note that ITAT in assessee’s own case vide order dated 15.01.2021 in ITA No.3715/Del/2017 for AY 2011- 12 and ITA No.3716/Del/2017 for AY 2012-13 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee as under :- “7.2 As far as the issue of disallowance of payment to Retired partners in Assessment Year 2011…

Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed for Revenue for AY 2013-14 stands dismissed, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2014-15 filed by the assessee are al...

ITA 7236/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Niraj Setha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR
Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…dgement in CIT v. V.N.V. Devara Julu Chetty & Co. (18 ITR 357) (Mad) (xi) Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgement in CIT v. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe (190 ITR 198) (Bom) (xii) Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgement in CIT v. Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons (130 ITR 863) (Bom) 19. Upon careful consideration, we note that ITAT in assessee’s own case vide order dated 15.01.2021 in ITA No.3715/Del/2017 for AY 2011- 12 and ITA No.3716/Del/2017 for AY 2012-13 has decided this issue in favour of the assessee as under :- “7.2 As far as the issue of disallowance of payment to Retired partners in Assessment Year 2011…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2578,2579 & 2580/Chny/2017 And C.O. Nos.47,48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अ…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2578,2579 & 2580/Chny/2017 And C.O. Nos.47,48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अ…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2578,2579 & 2580/Chny/2017 And C.O. Nos.47,48 & 49/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Income Tax, Sells, Non-corporate Circle-1(1), ASV Ramana Towers, (formerly Business Circle-I) 52,Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai. T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACFD 3771 D ] (अ…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (4) vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…150-158 26 CIT Vs. Madras Race Club [1996] 219 ITR 39 (Mad) 159-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co. 106 ITR 884 (Bom) 212-215 34 CIT Vs. Nariman B Bharucha & Sons 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 216-219 35 Jit and Pal X-Rays Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 267 ITR 370 (All) 220-223 36 CIT Vs. Varanasi Nagar Vikas 275 ITR 140 (All) 224-226 38 Soma Trg Joint Venture Vs CIT 398 ITR 425 (J & K) 234-239 40 CIT Vs. Patuck 71 ITR 713 (Bom) 246-256 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Chamundi Winery and Distillery

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

…150-158 26 CIT Vs. Madras Race Club [1996] 219 ITR 39 (Mad) 159-168 27 CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd 174 ITR 475 (Kar) 169-171 33 CIT Vs. Crawford Bayley & Co. 106 ITR 884 (Bom) 212-215 34 CIT Vs. Nariman B Bharucha & Sons 130 ITR 863 (Bom) 216-219 35 Jit and Pal X-Rays Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 267 ITR 370 (All) 220-223 36 CIT Vs. Varanasi Nagar Vikas 275 ITR 140 (All) 224-226 38 Soma Trg Joint Venture Vs CIT 398 ITR 425 (J & K) 234-239 40 CIT Vs. Patuck 71 ITR 713 (Bom) 246-256 Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters…

Kripa Shanakar Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4146/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri. Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271FSection 273Section 55(2)

…ent that the assessee being MLA, the salary & allowance received were exempt u/s 10 and it was under bonafide belief that the receipt towards goodwill from the firm at the time of retirement was not taxable in view of the decisions in case of 115 ITR 95(Bom), 130 ITR 863(Bom) etc. Hence earlier no return was filed. The return was flied only when assessee learnt that the receipt of goodwill was taxable.” However, the Ld. CIT-A was not convinced he held that there has 5. already been the change of law u/s. 55(2), hence assessee’s claim of ignorance of law cannot be accepted. Ld. CIT-A proceeded to confirm the levy…

CIT v. Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons. (130 ITR 863) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax