Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT v. Barium Chemicals Ltd.

88 ITD 118Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#14476 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT v. Barium Chemicals Ltd.

International Cargo Terminals & Rail Infrastructure Private Limited (Formerly Known As Boxtrans Logistrics (India) Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 1637/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT -1(1)(1), M/s International Cargo Terminals Room No. 533, & Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, (formerly known as Boxtrans M.K. Road, बिधम/ Logistics (I) Services Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020 Godrej Coliseum, Office No. 801, Vs. C-wing, Behind Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (east), Mumbai – 400 022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCB8054G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / : Respondent) अपीलाथीकी…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-24(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Gulabdas Shah, Mumbai

ITA 5134/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5134/Mum/2017 & Co. No. 319/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit – 24(1) Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah, Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, B-1601, Titanium Towers बनाम/ 16Th Floor, Jai View Chsl Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Sahakar Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmfps-8959-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)/Respondent (""थ" / Respondent)/Appellant : Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil G. Shah – Assessee-In-Person सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-36/It-217/Acit-24(1)/15-16 Dated 26/05/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

…e chargeable to tax only if it falls under section 45 of the Act (as capital gains) though capital receipt as such is not taxable. This principle was described by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Mumbai) in Dhruv A. Shah v. Commissioner of Income Tax [20041 88 ITD 118 as follows: "Further, all receipts are not taxable under the Income Tax Act. Section 2(24) defines "income". It is no doubt that this is an inclusive definition. However, a capital receipt is not income under section 2(24^ unless it is chargeable to tax as capital gain under section 45. It is for that reason that under section 2(24) (vi), the Legi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5884/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…mbay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265 (Mum) etc. in support of their contention that where the payment was made to compensate a person for cancellation of contract, it is 7 in the nature of capital receipt. On a care…

Mr. Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

D vs. Dishti Industries Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 1277/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 43(1)

…No. 4 and 5 has been settled by the Hon'ble Bombay high Court in their judgement in case of Sterling Construction & Investments/ (2015) 58 Taxmann. Com 199 (Bombay) and by the Mumbai Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT in their judgement in case of Dhruv N. Shah(2004) 88 ITD 118 (Mumbai) (TM) ; 9. Once no capital gains have arisen to the assessee, there is no question of the capital gains being of long term or short term kind; 10. In the case of Raman Iron Foundry AIR 1974 SC 1265 / the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is only in the event of a breach of agreement / contract that a party acquires any right to sue agai…

Eagle Home Appliances P. Ltd ( Formerly M.S, Trder Team Ltd) vs. CIT-7

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

ITA 5419/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.5419/Mum/2008 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Eagle Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/S. Trade Team Ltd.) 4Th Floor, Parmar Gallery, Wanowrie, Pune – 411 040 अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan :Aaact3316M …. Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3)-(2) …. ""यथ" / Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263

…f the Act. Relying on the judgments of jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108, CIT Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 and the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rupali R. Desai Vs. ACIT 88 ITD 118 (TM), Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the present order of the CIT is unsustainable as the AO has already examined the issues and followed due process of law in making the regular assessment order. 13. We heard both the parties on the issue relating to various aspects and arguments raised by both the parties. We have also perused the pa…

Pravin L. Manania, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri. M. Dayasagar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 54

…CIT did not agree and that this cannot render the order of assessment erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this context, the Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Dhruv N. Shah (88 ITD 118) (Mum). It was submitted that the Ld. CIT’s revision was only a change of opinion on an issue which has already been considered and allowed by the assessee. The Ld. AR also contended that even on merits, the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act was to be allowed in view of the following decisions:- (i) L N Nagda (211 ITR 804) (Bom) (…