CIT v. Seshasayee Brothers Pvt Ltd.

222 ITR 818High Court1996#23717 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 14A Section 2(24)(vi)Section 2(47)Section 28(iv)Section 45 Section 47(vii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Seshasayee Brothers Pvt Ltd.

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Prakash Nimmagadda, Hyderabad, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)

Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

…on 28(iv), and Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra) also holds so. As to what constitutes capital receipt, we find guidance from Hon'ble Madras High Court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Seshasayee Bros. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 818/89 Taxman 13 wherein Their Lordships, after elaborately surveying the legal precedents on this issue, concluded that, "Thus, a combined reading of the abovesaid judicial pronouncements would go to show that when a receipt is referable to fixed capital, it is not taxable, and it is taxable as a revenue receipt when it is referable to circulating c…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Buhari Holdings Privae Limited, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 28

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [PAN AAACB 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ…

ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Marudhar Mudra P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3166/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2007-08 Ito-4(2)(4), M/S Marudhar Mudra Pvt. Room No.647, 6Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ M.K. Road, 101-102, Chartered House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 293-297, Dr. C.H.Street, Mumbai-400020 Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcm5764F

Section 73

…ppellant is not of buying and selling of real estate. Therefore such compensation received by the appellant cannot be taxed under the head "Income from Business or profession". Strong reliance is placed on the decision of CIT vs Seshasayee Bros (P) Ltd (1996) 222 ITR 818 (Mad). 5.3 Thirdly, the LAO has not disputed that the SUM received by the appellant was a compensation for relinquishing all the rights the appellant had in the allotted property. It is not disputed that the compensation was a consideration received towards relinquishment or surrender of the tenancy rights and ownership rights and consequently i…