How many judgments cite CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji?

41 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (35 ITR 148), spanning 1992 to 2025.

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 115J, Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, Section 143(3), Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, Section 2002.

35 ITR 148Supreme Court of India1959#2904 most cited

What is CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji authority for?

Compensation received for the cancellation of an agency agreement is a capital receipt if it impairs the assessee's trading structure or results in the loss of a source of income. However, if the contract is terminated in the ordinary course of business, the compensation may be considered a revenue receipt, with classification depending on the specific facts of each case.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji · capital receipt · revenue receipt · agency termination compensation · loss of source of income · trading structure impairment · Section 28(va) · Section 41 · business income · capital asset transfer · non-compete fee · enduring benefit

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 115J Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act Section 143(3)Section 14A of the Income Tax Act Section 2002 Section 234B Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)non-compete fee section 80h section 55 transfer of capital asset section 80hh section 80hhc intangible assets section 41(1)computer software enduring benefit section 41

Judgments citing CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 250

…in\nreaching a decision. It has further been held that for determining the\nquestion of capital and incomes, trading profit or non trading profit\nare questions do involve a question of law to be drawn from the facts.\n[CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha\nv. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT\n[1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964]\n53 TR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 TR 11\n(SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the\naforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in Karamc…

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…in\nreaching a decision. It has further been held that for determining the\nquestion of capital and incomes, trading profit or non trading profit\nare questions do involve a question of law to be drawn from the facts.\n[CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha\nv. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT\n[1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT\n[1964] 53 [TR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 TR 11\n(SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the\naforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in Karam…

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

…'ble Supreme Court in the said decision and then test the case of the assessee as to whether the compensation received should be treated as a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. In the case of Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1959) 35 ITR 148 (SC)), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after analysing the various judgments on the said point held that where by cancellation of an agency the trading structure of the assessee is impaired, or such cancellation results in loss of what may be regarded as the source of the assessee's income, the payment made to compensate for cancellation of the agency a…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta27 Jun 2024

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

…SC 1262 (Associated Hotels of India Ltd. Vs. R. N. Kapoor); [para 28]; II. (2014) 2 SCC 657 (Yazdani International Private Limited vs. Auroglobal Comtrade Private Limited & Others); [para 43]; III. 1959 SUPP [1] SCR 110 : AIR 1959 SC 291 : (1959) 35 ITR 148 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Vaiji & Others); [para 11]; IV. (1964) 53 ITR 261 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 205 (Kettlewell Bullen And Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta); [paras 15, 20, 21, 26 and 36]; Page 45 of 77 V. [1999] 3 SCC 127 (Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Ta…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN MUMBAI vs. LYKA LABS LTD., GROUND FLOOR, SPENCER BLDG.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2520/MUM/2023[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-2(2)(1) Lyka Labs Ltd. Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 30 Forjett Street, Grant Road (W), Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 036 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Samir ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A)erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10 crore towards non-compete fees without appreciating the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rs.3,57,00,000/- Rai Bahadur Jairam Viji (1959) 35 ITR 148?” 3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10 crore towards non-compete fees without appreciating the facts that the restriction on the assessee as per the agreement is not absolute but restriction shall apply till such time the assessee holds 26% of the total issue…

RAJASTHAN MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT DCIT CIR -6 JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed

ITA 479/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

…in procurement of capital asset should be treated as capital receipt and balance amount relating to erection and construction of works and performance of all other duties should be treated as revenue receipt assessable in hands of assessee.. 6.4.3 In [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax vs Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held Once it is found that a contract was entered into in the ordinary course of business, any compensation received for its termination would be a revenue receipt, irrespective of whether its performance was to consist of a single act or a series of acts s…

SIEL LTD. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1),,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2659/DEL/2004[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 1997-1998

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 115J

…venue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide Section 28(va) and that too with effect from 1.4.2003. Hence, the said Section 28(va) is amendatory and not clarificatory. Lastly, in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji reported in 35 ITR 148 it was held by this Court that if a contract is entered into in the ordinary course of business, any compensation received for its termination (loss of agency) would be a revenue receipt. In the present case, both CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the agreement entered into by the assessee with Ranbaxy led to loss of sou…

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

…as capital gains is not sustainable. 31. The Ld. CIT(A) at page 12 has thrashed the facts in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [53 ITR 261 (SC)], CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji 35 ITR 148 (SC), CIT vs. Chari and Chari Ltd. 57 ITR 400 (SC) & Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 236 ITR 903 and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Indo Foreign Traders (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 308 (Mad.) and Chemplant Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (234 ITR 23). ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 22 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier k…

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

SAEED MUSTAFA SHERVANI vs. COMM. OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/1200/2005HC Delhi13 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…al receipt and not as a revenue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide Section 28(v-a) and that too with effect from 1-4-2003. Hence, the said Section 28(v-a) is amendatory and not clarificatory. 9. Lastly, in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [(1959) 35 ITR 148 (SC)] it was held by this Court that if a contract is entered into in the ordinary course of business, any compensation received for its termination (loss of agency) Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:26.10.2023 20:38:32 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos.399/2005 & 1200/2005…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAEED MUSTAFA SHERVANI

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/399/2005HC Delhi13 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

M/S KWALITY CAFE & RESTAURANT P LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/585/2006HC Punjab & Haryana18 Apr 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 260A

…ue before the Tribunal was to consider the tax liability with respect to the amount of Rs.55 lakhs received by the assessee. While deciding this issue, the Tribunal has referred to a number of judgments i.e. CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, (1959) 35 ITR 148 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC), Divecha (P.H.) vs. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC) and Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 903 (SC). As per opinion of the Tribunal, receipt of consideration for transfer of goodwill/trade marks and trade names is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. Thereafter,…

ACIT CENT .CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2396/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th 15Th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8268P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rakesh RanjanFor Respondent: K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar

Section 115JSection 143(2)

…Court in a large number of cases. See, for example, Commr. of Income- tax v. Vazir Sultan & Sons 1959 Supp (2) SCR 375: (AIR 1959 SC 814), Godrej & Co. v. Commr. of Income-tax (1960) 1 SCR 527: (AIR 1959 SC 1352), Commr. of Income- tax v. Jairam Valji (1959) 35 ITR 148: (AIR 1959 SC 291), Senairam Doongarmall v. Commr. of Income Tax (1961) 42 ITR 392 (AIR 1961 SC 1579)." The Apex Court in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT AIR 1965 SC 65, has further held- 11. Whether, a particular receipt is capital or income from business, has frequently engaged the attention of the courts. It may be broadly stated that what…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1020/BANG/2007[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2000-01 M/S. Wipro Ge The Deputy Medical Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 4, Kadugodi Income Tax, Indl. Area, Central Circle – Sadaramangala, 1(3), Vs. Bangalore – 560 067. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacw1685G Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Assessee By Smt. Girija G.P., Advocates : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Remand By Hon'Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No. 1058/2008 Vide Order Dated 02/12/2016 In An Appeal Filed By Revenue. 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That Revenue Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court Against Order Dated 20/06/2008 Passed By This Tribunal On Following Issues. 1) Reduction In Claim Of Exemption Of Profits U/S. 10A. 2) Reduction In Claim U/S. 80Hhe.

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep &

Section 10ASection 80HSection 80I

…enue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide Section 28(va) and that too with effect from 1.4.2003. Hence, the said Section 28 (va) is amendatory and not clarificatory. Lastly, in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji reported in 35 ITR 148 it was held by this Court that if a contract is entered into in the ordinary Page 14 course of business, any compensation received for its termination (loss of agency) would be a revenue receipt. In the present case, both CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the agreement entered into by the assessee with Ranbaxy led to lo…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…venue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide Section 28(va) and that too with effect from 1.4.2003. Hence, the said Section 28(va) is amendatory and not clarificatory. Lastly, in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji reported in 35 ITR 148 it was held by this Court that if a contract is entered into in the ordinary course of business, any compensation received for its termination (loss of agency) would be a revenue receipt. In the present case, both CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal, came totheconclusion that the agreement entered into by the assessee with Ranbaxy led to loss of sourc…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S M/S RISABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 30/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.(S)29 & 30/Rpr/2017 Co No.(S) 04 & 05/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Risabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Manas Bhawan, Near Adarsh Garage, Opp. Pujari Park, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aaccr4411P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…tal receipt and not a revenue receipt. 12 ACIT Vs. M/s. Risabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.29 & 30/RPR/2017 CO Nos. 04 & 05/RPR/2017 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji&Ors. (1959) 35 ITR 148 (SC) : TC 13R.629 and submitted that assessee had the business of running the hotels in various countries and the amount which is received by him is for the termination of first contract which was executed in 1970 and, therefore, it should be considered his revenue receipt. In that case the Court was dealing with a trading contract and held that c…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S M/S RISABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 29/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside on

ITAT/274/2017HC Calcutta17 Nov 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 260A

…’ble Supreme Court in the said decision and then test the case of the assessee as to whether the compensation received should be treated as a revenue receipt or a capital receipt. In the case of Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1959) 35 ITR 148 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court after analysing the various judgments on the said point held that where by cancellation of an agency the trading structure of the assessee is impaired, or such cancellation results in loss of what may be regarded as the source of the assessee’s income, the payment made to compensate for cancellation of the agency a…

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…ount in reaching a decision. It has further been held that for determining the question of capital and incomes, trading profit or non trading profit are questions do involve a question of law to be drawn from the facts. [CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in 'Karamcha…

M/S ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated

ITA/184/2013HC Karnataka09 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 28

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.184 OF 2013 BETWEEN: M/S. ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRINIVAS G. SHIRGURKR PLOT NO.7 & 8, II PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU), JSS TOWERS 100 FEET RING ROAD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALRE-560085. ... RES…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3