CIT Vs. J. Dalmia (149 ITR 215) (Del.), Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (

173 ITD 436Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#23102 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17 Section 2(14)Section 2(24)Section 2(47)

Judgments citing CIT Vs. J. Dalmia (149 ITR 215) (Del.), Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT (

Milan Saini, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

…28 (Bombay) (b) Bharat Forge Co Ltd vs CIT: [1994] 205 ITR 339 (Bombay) (c) CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd.: [1987] 164 ITR 664 (Cal.) (d) Aberdeen-Claims-Administration-Inc-1.[2016] 65 taxmann.com 246 (AAR) (e) Bhojison Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO: [2018] 173 ITD 436 (Ahm Trib) (f) Popular Estate Management v. DCIT: ITA No. 2703/Del/2017 (Ahd) (g) ITO vs. Ganeshsagar Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.: [2022] 135 taxmann.com 313 (Ahm Trib.) (h) Chheda Housing Development Corpn. Vs. ACIT: [2019] 179 ITD 154 (Mum Trib.) (i) ACIT vs Jackie Shroff: [2018] 172 ITD 425 (Mumbai) 12 (j) Satyam Food Specialties (P.) Ltd. v. Dy…

ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi vs. Akash Poddar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4344/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 17(3)(iii)

…leted years of service, for the purpose of taxation. Keeping in view the jurisprudence laid down as in the cases of CIT Vs. J. Dalmia (149 ITR 215) (Del.), Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (158 ITR 636) (Guj.), Bhojison Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (173 ITD 436), and ACIT Vs. Jackie Shroff (172 ITD 425) with regard to taxation of amount received as compensation for giving up the “Right to sue” and also keeping in view of the principles of real income, eligible income, receivable income and the accounting principles thereof as laid down above, we hold that the amount received quivalent 8 Akash Poddar to…

M/S. Khevana Securities and Finstock Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Vadodara

ITA 1427/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri VirendraOjha, CIT.D.R

…for a consideration, it is not chargeable to tax as the right to sue is not a capital asset. Right to sue is not an actionable claim and it cannot be assigned. 8.7 We also note that Recently, in Bhojison Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. ITO [2018] 99 taxmann.com 26/173 ITD 436 (Ahd. - Trib) the assessee being a builder and developer entered into a development agreement with a land owner by which he had a right in the said land for development. Subsequently, the landlord sold the land to third parties. The assessee acquired "right to sue" for specific performance of its pre-emptive right to purchase the land. The assess…