Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III v. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11

110 ITR 71High Court1977#6496 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III v. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11 authority for?

Lease premiums, salami, or pagadi received for granting tenancy rights are capital receipts, not revenue receipts. This premium is treated as a transfer of a capital asset, exigible to capital gains tax.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta · 110 ITR 71 · capital receipt · revenue receipt · lease premium · salami · pagadi · tenancy rights · capital asset · capital gains

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III v. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 534/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 533/IND/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 532/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 531/IND/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

The ACIT-3(1), Indore vs. M/S. Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (I) Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 530/IND/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

M/S. Sez Indore Limted, Indore vs. The DCIT Circle -3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 206/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

M/S. Sez Indore Limted, Indore vs. The DCIT Circle -3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 205/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

M/S. M.P. Audhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam, Indore vs. The DCIT 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 761/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

M/S. Sez Indore Limited, Indore vs. The CIT-I, Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 571/IND/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 351/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 350/IND/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 349/IND/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 348/IND/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 347/IND/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…a recurring or periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from the tenant for the same holding." (ix) The Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11.1976 – BOM HC) [1977] 110 ITR 71(Bom) has also held the lease premium, salami or pagadi as Capital Receipt and rejected the contention of the Income Tax Authorities to consider it as revenue receipt. 7. It is true that in the instant case there were at least more than 12 tenants in respect of which the assessee must have received these amounts by way of premiums from the respec…

ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Dr . Vasant J Rath Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

ITA 844/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Income Tax Officer 18(2)(1), Room No.110, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e CIT(Appeals) following the ratio of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parbari Tea Co. Ltd. C.O. 76/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) (1965) 57 ITR 422(SC) of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ratilal Tarachand Mehta(1977) 110 ITR 71(Bom); of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Wadhwa Associates & Realtors Pvt. Ltd.(ITA No.695/Mum/2012) held that the premium of Rs.51.00 lakhs received by the assessee trust for grant of tenancy rights to the six tenants is transfer of capital asset and is exigible to capital gains and not as advance rent to be taxed under th…

Udaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…i High Court in the case of CIT v. Vikas Polymers in (2010) 341 ITR 537(Del. HC) , Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jewel of India v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 92(Bom. HC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta in (1977) 110 ITR 71(Bom. HC ) and submitted the lump- sum payment as received which is the system of PAGDI of SALAMI is capital receipt . The assessee-HUF also releied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Das Khanna v. CIT(1969) 72 ITR 796(SC) and also whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 273 ITR 1 (supra) affirmed 249 ITR 265 (supra). 9. The…

Sujaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7490/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…i High Court in the case of CIT v. Vikas Polymers in (2010) 341 ITR 537(Del. HC) , Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jewel of India v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 92(Bom. HC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta in (1977) 110 ITR 71(Bom. HC ) and submitted the lump- sum payment as received which is the system of PAGDI of SALAMI is capital receipt . The assessee-HUF also releied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Das Khanna v. CIT(1969) 72 ITR 796(SC) and also whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 273 ITR 1 (supra) affirmed 249 ITR 265 (supra). 9. The…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III v. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta (12.11 (110 ITR 71) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax