CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom), CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers

Mrs Shireen J. Dastur, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Taxation Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shireen J. Dastur Income Tax Officer, 330, Coral Avenue, (International Taxation), New Port Beach, Ward 2(1)(1), California Vs. Mumbai 92662 Usa (Pan : Ctlpd0257N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 O R D E R

…have acquired a legally enforceable right over the capital asset had a court of law declared so in her favour. 7. In this context, we refer to the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla [1992] 195 ITR 28 (Bom). In this judgement, Hon'ble Court noted that it is a trite law that income can be held to accrue only when the assessee acquires the right to receive the income. For the purpose of invoking chargeability for capital gains arising from capital asset, the right to capital asset must fall within the expression “property of any kind” in the defi…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Kaushal Yashwant Agarwal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

…he Hon'ble Bombay High Court as has been referred and relied upon by the ld. PCIT in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers supra, there is another decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla, Mumbai (1992) 195 ITR 28 (Bom), which held otherwise. The relevant pics of the judgment is as under:- Facts: Taxpayer had entered into contract for acquiring lease rights in property from Government. The vendor committed breach and contractor was cancelled. Taxpayer could direct specific performance from seller by executing a sale deed, and in alternative, could claim co…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

…decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as has been referred and relied upon by the ld. PCIT in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers supra, there is another decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abbasbhoy D Deghghamwala, 195 ITR 28 (Bom), which held otherwise. The relevant gist of the judgment is as under:- Facts: Taxpayer had entered into contract for acquiring lease rights in property from Government. The vendor committed breach and 11 ITA No.968/Mum/2025 and others Ramesh Ravji Chheda and others contract was cancelled. The court directed that specific performance was not…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

…decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as has been referred and relied upon by the ld. PCIT in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers supra, there is another decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abbasbhoy D Deghghamwala, 195 ITR 28 (Bom), which held otherwise. The relevant gist of the judgment is as under:- Facts: Taxpayer had entered into contract for acquiring lease rights in property from Government. The vendor committed breach and contract was cancelled. The court directed that specific performance was not to be insisted and taxpayer could claim compensation for breach.…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Rasik Kunverji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

…decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as has been referred and relied upon by the ld. PCIT in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers supra, there is another decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abbasbhoy D Deghghamwala, 195 ITR 28 (Bom), which held otherwise. The relevant gist of the judgment is as under:- Facts: Taxpayer had entered into contract for acquiring lease rights in property from Government. The vendor committed breach and 11 ITA No.968/Mum/2025 and others Ramesh Ravji Chheda and others contract was cancelled. The court directed that specific performance was not…

DCIT, Mum vs. Shelter Developers, Mum

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

…operty Act, right to sue cannot be transferred. If the compensation or damage is received on account of right to sue, it cannot be held that it is a transfer of capital asset. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Abbasbhoy D Deghghamwala reported in 195 ITR 28 (Bom) wherein, the issue was that taxpayer had entered into contract for acquiring lease rights in property from Government. The vendor committed breach and contract was cancelled. The court directed that specific performance was not to be insisted and taxpayer could claim compensation for breach. The Hon'ble High Court held that compensation so r…

Virendra Bhavanji Gala, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

…High Court as has been referred and relied upon by the ld. PCIT in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers supra, there is another decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT 12 Shri Virendra Bhavanji Gala vs. Abbasbhoy D Deghghamwala, 195 ITR 28 (Bom), which held otherwise. The relevant gist of the judgment is as under:- Facts: Taxpayer had entered into contract for acquiring lease rights in property from Government. The vendor committed breach and contract was cancelled. The court directed that specific performance was not to be insisted and taxpayer could claim compensation for breach.…

Chheda Housing Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Chheda Housing Addl. Cit-32(1) Development Corporation 2Nd Floor, C-11, Pratyakshkar 109-111, Goyal Shopping Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Centre, Opp. Railway Station, Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaefc1484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram With Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (Ar) Respondent By : Shri H.N. Singh Cit –Dr With Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

…) Ltd Vs ITO [2018] 99 taxmann.com 26 (Ahmedabad Tribunal), (ii) Caddell Weaving Mills Co. (P) Ltd Vs CIT 249 ITR 265(Bombay), (iii) CIT Vs J Dalmia (149 ITR 215 Delhi), (iv) Bharat Forge Co Ltd Vs CIT (205 ITR 339 Bombay), (v) CIT Vs Abbasbhoy A Dehgamwalla (195 ITR 28 Mumbai (vi) CIT Vs Asoka Marketing Ltd (164 ITR 664 Calcutta) (vii) DCIT Vs Ýogen Sinhgwi (ITA No.477/M/2011 dated 01.11.2017) (viii) ACIT Vs Jackie Shroff (2018) 194 TTJ 760 (Mumbai) (ix) CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd (325 ITR 422 SC) (x) CIT Vs Tata services Ltd (122 ITR 594 Bombay) (xi) CIT Vs Vijay Flexible Container (186 ITR 693 Bombay) (xii)…

Bhansali Infotech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Office No. 5 & 6 Income Tax (Osd) 10(3) Shakti Arcade Aayakar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Plot No.5, Sector – 19D Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Room No.517, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccb7808E Appellant) .. Respondent)

…at even if assessing officer's stand is accepted, consideration received for giving up "right to sue" is a capital receipt. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla and Ors (1992) 195 ITR 28 (Bm). 22. Ld. DR in respect of first issue regarding sum of Rs.40 Cr contended that since property was not in existence when the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into and in consequence of which area to be constructed was allotted to assessee, no right in the nature of capital asset came into existence. Thus CIT(A) has rightly confirmed ac…

Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Mumbai vs. DIT (It) II, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Director Of Income Tax Anand Bhavan, 501, (International Taxation)Ii, 2Nd Babulnath X Lane, Scindia House, Vs. Chowpatty, Gr. Flr., Mumbai-7 R/No.007, N.M. Marg, Pan: Aahpm1375M Ballard Pier, Mumbai - 38 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e Ld. A.R. relied on many judgments and argued that the liquidated damages received from the bridge of contract. Therefore, it is not liable. The Ld. A.R. also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abbasbhoy Dehgamwalla [195 ITR 28 (Bom)] and submitted that liquidated damages are not liable. 7. We have also gone through the order of AO and Ld. DIT(IT). We find that AO has not examined regarding liquidated damages and AO failed to make enquiry. Secondly, the Ld. DIT(IT) has also not 7 Shri Kabir Sudhir Mulji made enquiry whether liquidated damages are taxable as capital gain…