Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chari and Chari Ltd.

57 ITR 400Supreme Court of India1965#8691 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69ASection 131(1A)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 194qsection 55(2)section 158b(b)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsummons under section 131section 158bbsection 65bsection 65statement under section 132(4)section 131(1a)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chari and Chari Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…s considered the question of burden of proof in the decision reported in CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Lid. AIR 1966 S.C. 1325 and specifically dealt with it in paragraph 6: "6. At this stage the question of burden of proof raised at the Bar may be noted. In (1965) 57 ITR 400 (AIR 1966 SC 54), this court observed: "…..it must in the first instance be observed that it is for the revenue to establish that a particular receipt is income liable to tax…..” We may point out, as some argument was advanced on the question of burden of proof, that this Court did not lay down that the burden to establish that an income was tax…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…s considered the question of burden of proof in the decision reported in CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Lid. AIR 1966 S.C. 1325 and specifically dealt with it in paragraph 6: "6. At this stage the question of burden of proof raised at the Bar may be noted. In (1965) 57 ITR 400 (AIR 1966 SC 54), this court observed: "…..it must in the first instance be observed that it is for the revenue to establish that a particular receipt is income liable to tax…..” We may point out, as some argument was advanced on the question of burden of proof, that this Court did not lay down that the burden to establish that an income was tax…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…s considered the question of burden of proof in the decision reported in CIT v. Best & Co. (P.) Lid. AIR 1966 S.C. 1325 and specifically dealt with it in paragraph 6: "6. At this stage the question of burden of proof raised at the Bar may be noted. In (1965) 57 ITR 400 (AIR 1966 SC 54), this court observed: "…..it must in the first instance be observed that it is for the revenue to establish that a particular receipt is income liable to tax…..” We may point out, as some argument was advanced on the question of burden of proof, that this Court did not lay down that the burden to establish that an income was tax…

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R
Section 28Section 40Section 45

…Ld. CIT(A) at page 12 has thrashed the facts in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [53 ITR 261 (SC)], CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji 35 ITR 148 (SC), CIT vs. Chari and Chari Ltd. 57 ITR 400 (SC) & Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 236 ITR 903 and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Indo Foreign Traders (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 308 (Mad.) and Chemplant Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (234 ITR 23). ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 22 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier known as Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.) 32. Hon’b…

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R
Section 28Section 40Section 45

…Ld. CIT(A) at page 12 has thrashed the facts in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [53 ITR 261 (SC)], CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji 35 ITR 148 (SC), CIT vs. Chari and Chari Ltd. 57 ITR 400 (SC) & Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 236 ITR 903 and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Indo Foreign Traders (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 308 (Mad.) and Chemplant Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (234 ITR 23). ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 22 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited (Earlier known as Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.) 32. Hon’b…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S M/S RISABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 30/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.(S)29 & 30/Rpr/2017 Co No.(S) 04 & 05/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Risabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Manas Bhawan, Near Adarsh Garage, Opp. Pujari Park, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aaccr4411P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…not possible to lay down any single test as infallible or any single criterion as decisive. This Court in the case of Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 80 ITR 167 (SC) : TC 13R.1235 discussed and held that in CIT vs. Chari & Chari Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 400 (SC) : TC 38R.878 it was held that ordinarily compensation for loss of an office or agency is regarded as capital receipt, but this rule is subject to an exception that payment received even for termination of agency agreement would be revenue and not capital in the case where the agency was one of many which the assessee held and its termination…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S M/S RISABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 29/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.(S)29 & 30/Rpr/2017 Co No.(S) 04 & 05/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Risabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Manas Bhawan, Near Adarsh Garage, Opp. Pujari Park, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aaccr4411P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…not possible to lay down any single test as infallible or any single criterion as decisive. This Court in the case of Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 80 ITR 167 (SC) : TC 13R.1235 discussed and held that in CIT vs. Chari & Chari Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 400 (SC) : TC 38R.878 it was held that ordinarily compensation for loss of an office or agency is regarded as capital receipt, but this rule is subject to an exception that payment received even for termination of agency agreement would be revenue and not capital in the case where the agency was one of many which the assessee held and its termination…

NATVAR PARIKH & CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CEN IV, MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2082/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 40Section 40A

…tle lease period. No new 6 ITA No. 2082 Mum 2015 & Ors - Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. asset was added in the block of asset of assessee. The asset was already held by assessee. The case law relied by lower authorities in Panbari Tea Company Ltd. (57 ITR 400) is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. [1980] 124 ITR 1 and Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257. 12. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorit…

DY.C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S RISHABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…to resignation from secretaryship of a company. 17. On the other hand, where the answer was in the affirmative, the source of income itself being destroyed or severely impaired, the receipt was held to be capital in nature. fCIT vs. Chari & Chari Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 400 (SC) : (1965) TAX 20(3) 106 : TC13R.1229, Karamchand Thapar & Bros. P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1971) 80 ITR 167 (SC) : TC13R.1235A reversing the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Karamchand Thapar & Bros. P. Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 705 (Cal): TC13R.1236]. 18. Relying on the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Chari & Chari…

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)

…he amount in question. The amount was received because the assessee had given up its right to purchase and/or to operate the property. Further, it is loss of source of 15 (1971) 80 ITR 167 (SC) 16 (1965) 57 ITR 400 (SC) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTAs 159 & 160/2005 26 income to the assessee and that right is determined for consideration. Obviously, therefore, it is capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. (emphasis is ours) 15. The legal position that could be summarised from the case law discussed above is as follows: (i) W…

ADDL CIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. INDERVADAN H JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is allowed in part

ITA 103/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnoo
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…(P)Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA NO.3423/0e1/2007 , ITAT Delhi 'C' Bench. (iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT reported in 57 ITR 532(SC) (iv) Hon'be Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Chari N Chari reported in 57 ITR 400(SC) (v) Commissioner of Income Tax vs Leader Valves P Ltd (vi) Balaji Textile Industries (P) vs Third income Tax Officer (vii) Diagnostics vis. CIT reported in 334 ITR 111 Culcutta (viii) Gujarat Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs CIT reported in 316 ITR 274 (IX) Gujarat DCIT vs Adinath Industries reported in 252 ITR 476 (x) CtT vs M K Bras reported in…

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

ITA - 183 / 2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…t is income or not must depend entirely upon the nature of the receipt and the scope of the relevant taxing provision. 15. The question of burden to prove is, therefore, of some importance. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chari and Chari Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 400, 407 (SC), the Supreme Court observed: - “…………..it must in the first instance be observed that it is for the Revenue to establish that a particular receipt is income liable to tax………..” 16. The same three-Judge Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. Best & Co. Private Ltd., (1966) LX ITR 11, 18 clarified that in it…

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

ITA/183/2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…t is income or not must depend entirely upon the nature of the receipt and the scope of the relevant taxing provision. 15. The question of burden to prove is, therefore, of some importance. In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chari and Chari Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 400, 407 (SC), the Supreme Court observed: - “…………..it must in the first instance be observed that it is for the Revenue to establish that a particular receipt is income liable to tax………..” 16. The same three-Judge Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. Best & Co. Private Ltd., (1966) LX ITR 11, 18 clarified that in it…