CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji

35 ITR 148Supreme Court of India1959#2868 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.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 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 1961Section 115JSection 115JB of the Income Tax ActSection 143(3)Section 14A of the Income Tax ActSection 2002Section 234BSection 234C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)non-compete feesection 80hsection 55transfer of capital assetsection 80hhsection 80hhcintangible assetssection 41(1)computer softwareenduring benefitsection 41

Judgments citing CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji

Shiv Raj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12044 OF 2016 SHIV RAJ GUPTA …Appellant Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-IV …Respondent J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. The present appeal relating to assessment year 1995-96 is by one Shri Shiv Raj Gupta, who was the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Central Distillery and Breweries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CDBL”), which had a unit in Meerut manufacturing beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor (hereinafter referred to as “IMFL”). T…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sri. K.Srikanth, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…insertion of clause (va) in section 28 by Finance Act, 2002 effective from 1.4.2003. Prior to amendment, it was held to be not taxable where the non-compete fee related to a business as a whole, as for example decided in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC). In such cases, it would be a capital receipt. In a case, where there was an agreement for transfer of trade mark by the assesses company to Ranbaxy, a pharmaceutical company with the assessee foregoing the right to carry on directly or indirectly the business hitherto carried on by it and the duration of the agreement was twenty years, it wa…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…insertion of clause (va) in section 28 by Finance Act, 2002 effective from 1.4.2003. Prior to amendment, it was held to be not taxable where the non-compete fee related to a business as a whole, as for example decided in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC). In such cases, it would be a capital receipt. In a case, where there was an agreement for transfer of trade mark by the assesses company to Ranbaxy, a pharmaceutical company with the assessee foregoing the right to carry on directly or indirectly the business hitherto carried on by it and the duration of the agreement was twenty years, it wa…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…insertion of clause (va) in section 28 by Finance Act, 2002 effective from 1.4.2003. Prior to amendment, it was held to be not taxable where the non-compete fee related to a business as a whole, as for example decided in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC). In such cases, it would be a capital receipt. In a case, where there was an agreement for transfer of trade mark by the assesses company to Ranbaxy, a pharmaceutical company with the assessee foregoing the right to carry on directly or indirectly the business hitherto carried on by it and the duration of the agreement was twenty years, it wa…

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…insertion of clause (va) in section 28 by Finance Act, 2002 effective from 1.4.2003. Prior to amendment, it was held to be not taxable where the non-compete fee related to a business as a whole, as for example decided in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC). In such cases, it would be a capital receipt. In a case, where there was an agreement for transfer of trade mark by the assesses company to Ranbaxy, a pharmaceutical company with the assessee foregoing the right to carry on directly or indirectly the business hitherto carried on by it and the duration of the agreement was twenty years, it wa…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Mitsu Limited, Daman

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3510/AHD/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…as a capital receipt and not as a revenue 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 CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1959) 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 sour…

M/S. Mitsu Private Limited, Vapi vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…as a capital receipt and not as a revenue 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 CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1959) 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 sour…

Income Tax Officer (It)-4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mr. Prabhakar Raghavendra Rao, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3985/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer (Intl. Vs. Mr. Prabhakar Raghavendra Tax) – 4(1)(1), Rao 1729, Air India Building Flat No.602, Palm Paradise Nariman Point Palm Beach Road Mumbai – 400 021 Sector-17, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No. Aafpr3259K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 43B

…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…

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)

…ofit or non-trading profit, are questions which, though they may depend to a very great extent on the particular facts of each case, do involve a conclusion of law to be drawn from those facts (see Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1955) 35 ITR 148 P. H. Divecha v. Commissioner of Income-tax 48 ITR 222, Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 53 ITR 261, Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 53 ITR 283 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC) 10. The question whether a particular income arising from the termi…

Bipin Vasudev Batavia, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2532/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri P.S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)

…t in the hands of assessee and the receipt of compensation on account of it is to be held as capital receipt. 5. The ld. DR Shri Sudhendu Das placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji reported in 35 ITR 148 (SC). On perusal of the same, we find that the assessee therein entered into an agreement to supply as limestone and 4 ITA No.2532/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 dolomite. Thereafter, the said contract has been terminated by both the parties therein and Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to the assessee therein. It clearly shows that the payment is out of settlement…

Dy.C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Raipur

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

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…e to the assessee and that right is determined for consideration. Obviously, therefore, it is capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. 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…

Amita R. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

ITA 1166/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: S/Shri M.M. Golvala & Mr. Hormuzd JamshedjiFor Respondent: Dr.Kailash P. Gaikwad
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 51

…r to the question must ultimately depend on the facts of a particular case, and the authorities bearing on the question are valuable only as indicating the matters that have to be taken into account in reaching a conclusion. In Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), it was observed thus (page 152) : "The question whether a receipt is capital or income has frequently come up for determination before the courts. Various rules have been enunciated as furnishing a key to the solution of the question, but as often observed by the highest authorities, it is not possible to lay down any single test as infallib…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Music Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is hereby Dismissed

ITA 3532/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3532/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit 10(1) बनाम/ M/S. Music Broadcast Pvt. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Vs. 4Th Floor, M. K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Rna Corporate Park, Opp. Western Express Highway, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 C.O. No.143/Mum/2014 (I.T.A. No. 3532/Mum/2013) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Music Broadcast Pvt. बनाम/ Dcit 10(1) Ltd. 455, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, M. K. Marg, Rna Corporate Park, Mumbai - 400020 Opp. Western Express Highway, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm4036H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri L.N. MalikFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 28

…s a capital receipt and not as a revenue 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 CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 it was held by this court that if 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 source…

Allcatel Usa Sourcing Lp ( Included in Alcatel-Lucent Usa Inc.), Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8601/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.8601 & 7533/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S. Alcatel Usa Sourcing The Addl. Director Of बनाम/ Lp (Included In Alcatel- Income-Tax (International Vs. Lucent Usa Inc.) Taxation)-1, C/O Pricewaterhouse Scindia House, Coopers, Mumbai Pwc House, 4Th Floor, Guru Nanak Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfa9998A आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7534 & 7535/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Alcatel Usa Sourcing The Addl. Director Of बनाम/ Inc (Included In Alcatel- Income-Tax (International Vs. Lucent Usa Inc.) Taxation)-1, C/O Pricewaterhouse Scindia House, Coopers, Mumbai Pwc House, 4Th Floor, Guru Nanak Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aagca4535R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwalla अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Shri K.K. Ved ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Jasbir Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhan
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234B

…from doing business and injury is inflicted on capital asset, then the compensation will be capital and if injury is to stock-in-trade, then the compensation so received will be revenue in nature." (Emphasis supplied by us) • CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (35 ITR 148) (SC) The Supreme Court has held that if it was found that a contract was entered into the ordinary course of business, any compensation 18 M/s. Alcatel USA Sourcing LP 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 spread over a period. (Emphasi…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3666/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3668/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s LML Ltd, Tax, Range-3(2), 714, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) M/s LML Ltd, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income 714, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Range-3(2), 213, Nariman Point…

The ACIT RG-3(2) vs. M/S. Lml Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3668/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s LML Ltd, Tax, Range-3(2), 714, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) M/s LML Ltd, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income 714, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Range-3(2), 213, Nariman Point…

M/S. Lml Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG.3(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3540/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “L”, MUMBAI "ी जी.एस. प"ू, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3668/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s LML Ltd, Tax, Range-3(2), 714, Raheja Chambers, Mumbai 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 (Assessment year: 2000-01) M/s LML Ltd, Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income 714, Raheja Chambers, Tax, Range-3(2), 213, Nariman Point…

M/S Trans Global Plc( Early Known As Moran Holdings Plc), Kolkata vs. D, I, T (It) 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 943/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Sri R. N. Bajoria, Advocate & Sri A. K. Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 55(2)(a)

…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 6 M/s. Trans Global PLC A…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Globe Organics Ltd

ITTA/585/2006HC Telangana24 Apr 2012

Bench: V.ESWARAIAH,K.G.SHANKAR

Commnr. of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. M/S.Saurashtra Cement & Chem.Indus.Ltd

C.A. No.-003702-003702 - 2003Supreme Court09 Jul 2010

Bench: The High Court That Answer To The Said Question Stood Concluded In Favour Of The Assessee By The Decision Of This Court In C.I.T., 2

Section 256(1)Section 80J

…timately linked with the supply of machinery i.e. a fixed asset on capital account, which could be said to be connected with the source of income or profit making apparatus rather than a receipt in course of profit earning process and, therefore, 2 (1959) 35 ITR 148 (SC) 3 AIR 1965 SC 65 5 it could not be treated as part of receipt relating to a normal business activity of the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the said receipt had no connection with loss or profit because the very source of income viz., the machinery was yet to be installed. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the app…