CIT v. Vazir Sultan & Sons.

36 ITR 175Supreme Court of India1959#5891 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)non-compete feesection 28(i)section 28(iv)section 43(1)commercial rightsfull value of considerationright to receivelack of enquirysection 45section 48section 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing CIT v. Vazir Sultan & Sons.

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ough payment may be entirely, voluntary and the recipient may have no any repeat payment has no legal right to any compensation at all. The proposition is supported by the following decisions: CIT v E. D. Sheppard (48 ITR 237) (SC); CIT v Vazir Sultan & Sons (36 ITR 175, 185) (SC); P. H. Divecha v CIT (48 ITR 222) (SC); W.A. Guff v CIT (31 ITR 826) (Bom.); Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. v CIT (36 ITR 544) (Ker.), reversed on another point CIT v Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. (44 ITR 714) (SC); CIT v Shaw Wallace (6 ITC 178) (PC); CIT v P. K. Das (34 ITR 729) (Cal.); CIT v Pran Jiban Jaitha (52 ITR 108) (Cal.); and Ch…

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ough payment may be entirely, voluntary and the recipient may have no any repeat payment has no legal right to any compensation at all. The proposition is supported by the following decisions: CIT v E. D. Sheppard (48 ITR 237) (SC); CIT v Vazir Sultan & Sons (36 ITR 175, 185) (SC); P. H. Divecha v CIT (48 ITR 222) (SC); W.A. Guff v CIT (31 ITR 826) (Bom.); Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. v CIT (36 ITR 544) (Ker.), reversed on another point CIT v Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. (44 ITR 714) (SC); CIT v Shaw Wallace (6 ITC 178) (PC); CIT v P. K. Das (34 ITR 729) (Cal.); CIT v Pran Jiban Jaitha (52 ITR 108) (Cal.); and Ch…

M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT -2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.5 and the additional ground of appeal are allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shrigagan Goyalआअसं.2907/मुं/2008 ("न.व.2002-03) Zensar Technologies Ltd. Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. Pan: Aaacf-0742-K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(31), Mumbai Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate : ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr & Pratap Narayan Sharma, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/08/2023 आदेश/Order

For Respondent: S/Shri Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 10ASection 115JSection 234DSection 80HSection 94(7)

…ced reliance on the following decisions: (i) Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd, vs. CIT, 53 ITR 261 (SC) (ii) Karan Chand Thapar & Bros P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 80 ITR 167 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corp., 27 Taxman 314(SC) (iv) CIT vs. Vazir Sultan & Sons , 36 ITR 175 (SC) The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that with the execution of Compromise Agreement, the assessee surrendered the right to sue. Any compensation received in lieu of surrender of right to sue is capital in nature, hence, the compensation received by the assessee is capital receipt. In support of his argument, he placed reliance…

M/S. INDI STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA- II

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and

ITA/49/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…the intention of resale. Further it was pointed out where the purchase of any article or of any capital investment, for instance shares is made without the intention to resell it at a 6 (1959) 36 ITR 175 (SC) 7 (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) ITA NO. 49 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 11 of 11 profit, the resale under such changed circumstances would only be realization of capital and would not stamp the tr…

M/S. GAYAN TRADERS LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITA/48/2009HC Calcutta30 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…l other decisions it was held in determining the question whether after acquiring the shares, the assessee dealt with it as an investor or carried on business with it treating it as stock- 13 (1959) 36 ITR 175 (SC) ITA NO. 48 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 18 of 19 in-trade or as a trading asset what is relevant is that, if the case falls within the former category receipts by way of sale of such shares wi…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…3.4. Once, this is made clear, the next question that requires for our examination is as to whether the credits were received towards fixed capital or circulating capital. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vazir Sultan & Sons reported in 36 ITR 175(SC) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the assessee has decided the case where the issue was as to whether the sum received as compensation for loss of agency was revenue or capital. We find the Hon’ble Apex Court following the ratio laid down in the case of Van Den Berghs Ltd. has observed as under:- “We have therefore got to determine…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…3.4. Once, this is made clear, the next question that requires for our examination is as to whether the credits were received towards fixed capital or circulating capital. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vazir Sultan & Sons reported in 36 ITR 175(SC) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the assessee has decided the case where the issue was as to whether the sum received as compensation for loss of agency was revenue or capital. We find the Hon’ble Apex Court following the ratio laid down in the case of Van Den Berghs Ltd. has observed as under:- “We have therefore got to determine…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…3.4. Once, this is made clear, the next question that requires for our examination is as to whether the credits were received towards fixed capital or circulating capital. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vazir Sultan & Sons reported in 36 ITR 175(SC) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the assessee has decided the case where the issue was as to whether the sum received as compensation for loss of agency was revenue or capital. We find the Hon’ble Apex Court following the ratio laid down in the case of Van Den Berghs Ltd. has observed as under:- “We have therefore got to determine…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…3.4. Once, this is made clear, the next question that requires for our examination is as to whether the credits were received towards fixed capital or circulating capital. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vazir Sultan & Sons reported in 36 ITR 175(SC) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the assessee has decided the case where the issue was as to whether the sum received as compensation for loss of agency was revenue or capital. We find the Hon’ble Apex Court following the ratio laid down in the case of Van Den Berghs Ltd. has observed as under:- “We have therefore got to determine…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…3.4. Once, this is made clear, the next question that requires for our examination is as to whether the credits were received towards fixed capital or circulating capital. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vazir Sultan & Sons reported in 36 ITR 175(SC) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the assessee has decided the case where the issue was as to whether the sum received as compensation for loss of agency was revenue or capital. We find the Hon’ble Apex Court following the ratio laid down in the case of Van Den Berghs Ltd. has observed as under:- “We have therefore got to determine…

M/S UNICORN AGRO TECH LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD. vs. THE ASST. COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the

ITTA/48/2009HC Telangana16 Mar 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…l other decisions it was held in determining the question whether after acquiring the shares, the assessee dealt with it as an investor or carried on business with it treating it as stock- 13 (1959) 36 ITR 175 (SC) ITA NO. 48 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 18 of 19 in-trade or as a trading asset what is relevant is that, if the case falls within the former category receipts by way of sale of such shares wi…

V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITTA/159/2005HC Telangana05 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr. K. Vasant KumarFor Respondent: Ms. K. Mamata
Section 10(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD I.T.T.A. Nos.159 and 160 of 2005 DATED:05-01-2018 Between: V.C. Nannapaneni … Appellant And Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad-2 Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh Hyderabad … Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. K. Vasant Kumar COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms. K. Mamata THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CVNR, J & TA, J ITTAs 159 & 160/2005 2 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nag…

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)

…/Mum/2011 making apparatus got impaired. In support he also gave data for down fall of the production and sales in the later years and also how SCB had affected its business. Lastly, Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions:- i Vazir Sultan & Sons [1959] 36 ITR 175(SC) ii PH Divecha [1963] 48 ITR 222(SC) iii Gilanders Arbuthnot & Co Ltd [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) iv Kettlewell Bulllen & Co. Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804 (SC) vi Best and Co. (Private) Ltd. [1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC) vii Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 902(SC) viii Automobile Products of India [1981] 7 Taxman 327(Bom)…

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)

…/Mum/2011 making apparatus got impaired. In support he also gave data for down fall of the production and sales in the later years and also how SCB had affected its business. Lastly, Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions:- i Vazir Sultan & Sons [1959] 36 ITR 175(SC) ii PH Divecha [1963] 48 ITR 222(SC) iii Gilanders Arbuthnot & Co Ltd [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) iv Kettlewell Bulllen & Co. Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804 (SC) vi Best and Co. (Private) Ltd. [1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC) vii Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 902(SC) viii Automobile Products of India [1981] 7 Taxman 327(Bom)…

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)

…/Mum/2011 making apparatus got impaired. In support he also gave data for down fall of the production and sales in the later years and also how SCB had affected its business. Lastly, Ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions:- i Vazir Sultan & Sons [1959] 36 ITR 175(SC) ii PH Divecha [1963] 48 ITR 222(SC) iii Gilanders Arbuthnot & Co Ltd [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) iv Kettlewell Bulllen & Co. Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804 (SC) vi Best and Co. (Private) Ltd. [1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC) vii Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd [1999] 236 ITR 902(SC) viii Automobile Products of India [1981] 7 Taxman 327(Bom)…

AJAY KUMAR DOSHI.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.CIR - 54,KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1866/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…I.T.A. No. 1866/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & I.T.A. No. 120/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Page 1 of 14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1866/KOL/ 2012 Assessment Year: 2003-2004 Ajay Kumar Doshi,.................................................................Appellant P-130, CIT Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700 010 [PAN : ADGPD 2041 M] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,................................Respondent Circle-54, Kolkata, 3, Government Place (…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

ITA/910/2006HC Karnataka19 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…ncome Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging the same. However, the Revenue has not preferred any appeal. The Appellate Tribunal, after examining the records and some of the clauses of the agreement dated 30-06-2000, relying upon the judgment reported in 36 ITR 175 (C.I.T v/s VAZIR SULTAN TOBACOO COMPANY LIMITED) held that in view of the agreement, the assessee is prevented from manufacturing goods with respect to Pharmaceuticals which has been sold to the M/s.Recon Health Care Limited. The consideration of Rs.25.00 crores received is for not carrying out certain activities pertaining to the…

ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA - 183 / 2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…ing: - “(i) CIT vs. Best & Co. 60 ITR 11. (ii) Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd., 53 ITR 283 (SC) (iii) Hari Kailash & Co. vs. CIT, 22 ITR 195 (All.) (iv) Gomti Credits (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 100 TTJ (Del) 1132; (v) CIT vs. Wazir Sultan 36 ITR 175.” 10. We shall presently advert to the aforesaid decisions but before we do so, we may reproduce instructions - F.No.225/83/99-ITA-II dated 17th March, 1999 issued by the Board which are heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant: - 2010:DHC:5594-DB ITA No.183/2008…

(M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-I)

ITA/183/2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…ing: - “(i) CIT vs. Best & Co. 60 ITR 11. (ii) Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd., 53 ITR 283 (SC) (iii) Hari Kailash & Co. vs. CIT, 22 ITR 195 (All.) (iv) Gomti Credits (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 100 TTJ (Del) 1132; (v) CIT vs. Wazir Sultan 36 ITR 175.” 10. We shall presently advert to the aforesaid decisions but before we do so, we may reproduce instructions - F.No.225/83/99-ITA-II dated 17th March, 1999 issued by the Board which are heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant: - 2010:DHC:5594-DB ITA No.183/2008…

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

…expected to be productive over a certain period. These general principles have been settled 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…