Durga Prasad Khanna v. CIT

72 ITR 796Supreme Court of India1969#6129 most cited

What is Durga Prasad Khanna v. CIT authority for?

A payment of salami or premium is not a revenue receipt but a capital receipt, and departmental authorities and courts err in treating it as an advance rent.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Durga Prasad Khanna v. CIT · premium · salami · capital receipt · revenue receipt · advance rent · 72 ITR 796 SC

Judgments citing Durga Prasad Khanna v. CIT

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. the Indian News Paper Society, New Delhi

ITA 116/DEL/2017[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Garg, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

…ppellant has accepted that Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority has construed the receipt of premium as a capital receipt not exigible to tax and the AO (TDS), Delhi cannot now approbate and reprobate, on the above issue. In DURGA KHANNA v. CIT 72 ITR 796 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the onus is on the revenue to demonstrate that premium has been camouflaged as advance rent and the Assessing Officer, in the instant case has not brought on record any material to indicate that the rent has been suppressed and the premium has been inflated. In my opinion, to prove such a factual case of measly re…

DCIT, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad vs. United States Pharmacopeia India Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, revenue appeal is dismissed and the C

ITA 1582/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri M.H. Naik
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1582/Hyd/2017 and C.O. No. 37/Hyd/2017 A.Y.: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income- vs. M/s United States tax, Circle – 17(2), Hyderabad. Pharmacopeia India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN – AAACU 7542 C (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Revenue by : Shri M.H. Naik Assessee by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan Date of hearing 01-06-2017 Date of pronouncement 08-06-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal is preferred by the revenue against…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…premium and to hold that it was not in fact premium but only rent. The position does not seem to be different in the present case. -: 75 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (vi) The Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasad Khanna Versus CIT (1969) 72 ITR 796 (SC) has also held that in para 5 that the departmental authorities as well the High Court were in error in treating the amount of premium of Rs. 55,200/- as advance payment of rent. The Apex Court in para 4 has stated that the payment of Salami (Premium) could not be treated as revenue receipt. The payment of being non-recurring nature. 4. On…

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

…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 Ld. CIT DR submitted that the property is given on rent and CIT has rightly invoked Section 263 of the Act. The AO has not formed any opinion on the issue. No inquiry has been made by the AO and there is no application of mind by the AO while…

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

…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 Ld. CIT DR submitted that the property is given on rent and CIT has rightly invoked Section 263 of the Act. The AO has not formed any opinion on the issue. No inquiry has been made by the AO and there is no application of mind by the AO while…

Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS vs. The Indian News Paper Society

ITA/918/2015HC Delhi10 Dec 2015
Section 194ISection 260A

…/2015 & 920/2015 Page 5 of 5 Bharati (supra) also decides this particular issue likewise although on the facts of that case, the appeal of the that Assessee was dismissed. In Durga Khanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax 72 ITR 796 (SC), the Supreme Court held that, prima facie, premium or salami was not income and the onus was on the Revenue to show that facts existed which would make it a revenue payment. The decisions cited by Mr. Madan clearly turned on their own facts. As far as the present case is concerned, the facts brought on record, and which have not been co…

Durga Prasad Khanna v. CIT (72 ITR 796) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax