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#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.

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 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

Read the full judgment

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

Shrimand Padmaraja R. Kadambanda, Dhulia vs. The Commnr. of Income Tax, Pune

C.A. No.-002201-002203 - 1979Supreme Court22 Apr 1992

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

Section 15Section 15(1)Section 15(1)(d)Section 2(24)Section 4

…firmly by this court in large number of cases: see, for example, Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vazir Sultan & Sons, (1959) 36 ITR 175, Godrej & Co v. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Jairam Valji, (1959)35 ITR 148 and Senairam Doongarmall v Commis- sioner of Income tax (1961) 42 ITR 392." This was the reason why we said neither the nomenclature nor the periodicity of the payment would be the determinative factors. Regard must be had only to the nature and quality of payment. The High Court took the view that this is not compensa…