EID Parry Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

233 ITR 335High Court1998#2428 most cited

What is EID Parry Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Compensation received for the delay in the procurement of a capital asset is a capital receipt. However, the portion of compensation relating to erection, construction, and other duties is treated as a revenue receipt assessable in the hands of the assessee.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

EID Parry Ltd v CIT · 233 ITR 335 · Madras High Court · compensation nature · capital receipt · revenue receipt · delay in capital asset procurement · erection and construction compensation · classification of receipts · wholly and exclusively for business · section 32(1)(ii) · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 195Section 35(2AB)Section 40(a)(i)Section 92BSection 8DSection 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)domestic companyfull value of consideration

Judgments citing EID Parry Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. JCIT, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 201/BIL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…en before the Tribunal, ld. AR has only relied on the case laws and findings therein, the same is extracted as under: “D. Assessee’s argument before the Hon’ble Tribunal The assessee relies on the judgment of the EID Parry Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (233 ITR 335), wherein the Hon’bel Madras High Court held that “position of compensation which related to delay in procurement of capital asset should be treated as capital receipt and balance amount relating to erection and construction of works and performance of all other duties should be treated as revenue receipt assessable in hands of assessee.” In the…

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside on

ITAT/274/2017HC Calcutta17 Nov 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 260A

…n’ble Supreme Court as well as the other decisions which have been referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In fact one such decision which was relied on by the assessee in the said case was that of the High Court of Madras in E.I.D. Parry Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 335. For better appreciation, we quote paragraphs 11 and 12 of the decision in Saurashtra Cement Ltd. : 11. The question whether a particular receipt is capital or revenue has frequently engaged the attention of the courts but it has not 5 been possible to lay down any single criterion as decisive in the determination of the question. Time and ag…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT v. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. 191 Taxman 54 (Del. HC) 24 ii) Indo-Burma Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. CIT 136 ITR 25 (Calcutta HC) iii) V.S. Dempo and Co. (P) Ltd. 206 ITR 291 (Bom. HC) iv) E.I.D. Parry Ltd. v. CIT 174 ITR 11 (Mad. HC) v) CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd. 211 Taxman 554 (Mad. HC) The Ld. AR further submitted that fluctuation arising in foreign currency resulting in increase/decrease in liabilities pertaining to purchase of capital assets was on capital account, not liable to be considered for computing taxable income. For the said contention/prepositions, the…

DCIT Ltu 2, Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 4219/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Dcit (Ltu)-2, M/S Tata Motors Ltd., World Trade Centre, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Centre No. 1, 29Th Floor, Street, Hutatma Chowk, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400005 Pan : Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari (Ars)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari (ARs)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…findings of the ITAT directing the AO to treat the entire gain on account of exchange rate fluctuation as capital receipt. The ITAT had decided the said issue by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of E.I.D. Parry Ltd. vs. CIT 174 ITR 11, in which the Hon’ble court had held that if foreign currency is held as capital asset or as fixed capital, profit or loss arising on account of fluctuation in the value of foreign currency would be in the nature of capital receipt. 10. It is apparent from the notes filed by the assessee along with the revised computation of income that the assess…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…, and what is the scope of s. 45(4) of the Act that whether distribution of assets is a must. After discussing all these provisions of law in detail and placing reliance on various case law, reported in E.I.D. Parry Ltd. vs. CIT (1988) 98 CTR (Mad) 49: (1988) 174 ITR 11(Mad) and in the case of Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 483(Pat), the CIT(A) held that there is no transfer of capital asset from the firm to the company and, therefore, the provisions of R s. 112 of the IT Act r/w s. 45(4) cannot be applied, and accordingly it was held that the AO wrongly brought the amount to capital gai…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…, and what is the scope of s. 45(4) of the Act that whether distribution of assets is a must. After discussing all these provisions of law in detail and placing reliance on various case law, reported in E.I.D. Parry Ltd. vs. CIT (1988) 98 CTR (Mad) 49: (1988) 174 ITR 11(Mad) and in the case of Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 483(Pat), the CIT(A) held that there is no transfer of capital asset from the firm to the company and, therefore, the provisions of R s. 112 of the IT Act r/w s. 45(4) cannot be applied, and accordingly it was held that the AO wrongly brought the amount to capital gai…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…, and what is the scope of s. 45(4) of the Act that whether distribution of assets is a must. After discussing all these provisions of law in detail and placing reliance on various case law, reported in E.I.D. Parry Ltd. vs. CIT (1988) 98 CTR (Mad) 49: (1988) 174 ITR 11(Mad) and in the case of Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 483(Pat), the CIT(A) held that there is no transfer of capital asset from the firm to the company and, therefore, the provisions of R s. 112 of the IT Act r/w s. 45(4) cannot be applied, and accordingly it was held that the AO wrongly brought the amount to capital gai…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India CIT (166 ITR 108), Laurids Knudsen Maskinfabrik Ltd Vs ITO (77 ITD 212), SSI Ltd Vs DCIT (85 TTJ 1049), CIT Vs Telco Ltd (60 ITR 405) (SC), Homi Mehta & Sons Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (222ITR 528) (Bom) and EID Parry Ltd (174 ITR 11) (Mad). 42. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessing officer disallowed exchange Gain on repatriation GDR holding that gain of the amount arise from the money raised against the equity capital, had been realized in the normal course of business and was utilized a…

ACIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

…No. 4736 & 4598/M/2010- State Bank of India CIT (166 ITR 108), Laurids Knudsen Maskinfabrik Ltd Vs ITO (77 ITD 212), SSI Ltd Vs DCIT (85 TTJ 1049), CIT Vs Telco Ltd (60 ITR 405) (SC), Homi Mehta & Sons Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (222ITR 528) (Bom) and EID Parry Ltd (174 ITR 11) (Mad). 42. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessing officer disallowed exchange Gain on repatriation GDR holding that gain of the amount arise from the money raised against the equity capital, had been realized in the normal course of business and was utilized a…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1697/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (116 ITR 17) 4. Union Corporate India Ltd. vs. CIT (19 CTR 351-Cal.) 5. Tiruvani Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT (156 ITR 202-Del.) 6. Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. (59 CTR 232-Cal.) 7. EID Parry Ltd. vs. CIT (69 ITR 49-Mad.)/174 ITR 11(Mad). 8. Gujarat Namadha Valley Fertilizers Ltd. vs. DCIT (73 TTJ 787-Ahd.) 18.15 The CIT(Appeals) observed that any foreign currency or any currency is neither a commodity nor shares. The sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of Goods. Besides, no person other than authorized dealers and money changes are allowed in I…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1696/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (116 ITR 17) 4. Union Corporate India Ltd. vs. CIT (19 CTR 351-Cal.) 5. Tiruvani Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT (156 ITR 202-Del.) 6. Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. (59 CTR 232-Cal.) 7. EID Parry Ltd. vs. CIT (69 ITR 49-Mad.)/174 ITR 11(Mad). 8. Gujarat Namadha Valley Fertilizers Ltd. vs. DCIT (73 TTJ 787-Ahd.) 18.15 The CIT(Appeals) observed that any foreign currency or any currency is neither a commodity nor shares. The sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of Goods. Besides, no person other than authorized dealers and money changes are allowed in I…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sical Logistics Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1695/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar, JCIT &For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10Section 14A

…Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (116 ITR 17) 4. Union Corporate India Ltd. vs. CIT (19 CTR 351-Cal.) 5. Tiruvani Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT (156 ITR 202-Del.) 6. Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. (59 CTR 232-Cal.) 7. EID Parry Ltd. vs. CIT (69 ITR 49-Mad.)/174 ITR 11(Mad). 8. Gujarat Namadha Valley Fertilizers Ltd. vs. DCIT (73 TTJ 787-Ahd.) 18.15 The CIT(Appeals) observed that any foreign currency or any currency is neither a commodity nor shares. The sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of Goods. Besides, no person other than authorized dealers and money changes are allowed in I…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…relied by the ld.A.R in the course of CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [2002], 172 CTR 119(Guj) on the issue, which was delivered after considering the judgement of jurisdictional high court in the case of E. I. D. PARRY LTD. in [1998] 233 ITR 335 (Mad). Hence, in our opinion, it is to be applied in full force and accordingly, we 18 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 hold that the amount of damages received by the assessee to be considered as a capital receipt only and cannot be brought into tax. However, that should be reduced from the block of assets as plant and machinery entered i…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…relied by the ld.A.R in the course of CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [2002], 172 CTR 119(Guj) on the issue, which was delivered after considering the judgement of jurisdictional high court in the case of E. I. D. PARRY LTD. in [1998] 233 ITR 335 (Mad). Hence, in our opinion, it is to be applied in full force and accordingly, we 18 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 hold that the amount of damages received by the assessee to be considered as a capital receipt only and cannot be brought into tax. However, that should be reduced from the block of assets as plant and machinery entered i…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…relied by the ld.A.R in the course of CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [2002], 172 CTR 119(Guj) on the issue, which was delivered after considering the judgement of jurisdictional high court in the case of E. I. D. PARRY LTD. in [1998] 233 ITR 335 (Mad). Hence, in our opinion, it is to be applied in full force and accordingly, we 18 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 hold that the amount of damages received by the assessee to be considered as a capital receipt only and cannot be brought into tax. However, that should be reduced from the block of assets as plant and machinery entered i…

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

…relied by the ld.A.R in the course of CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. [2002], 172 CTR 119(Guj) on the issue, which was delivered after considering the judgement of jurisdictional high court in the case of E. I. D. PARRY LTD. in [1998] 233 ITR 335 (Mad). Hence, in our opinion, it is to be applied in full force and accordingly, we 18 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 hold that the amount of damages received by the assessee to be considered as a capital receipt only and cannot be brought into tax. However, that should be reduced from the block of assets as plant and machinery entered i…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Emerald Resilient Tyre Manufactures Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue appeal is allowed

ITA 371/CHNY/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(5)

…WAP transaction with SBI and the preferred currency being CHF (Swiss Franc) and applied the RBI guidelines and swap transactions and supported his arguments with the decisions of (i) Woodward Governor Inda Ltd (312 ITR 254), (ii) EID Parrys Limited Vs DCIT (174 ITR 11), (iii) ONGC Ltd. Vs CIT (230 CTR 0313), (iv) CIT Vs Badridas Gauridu Pvt Ltd (261 IT 256) :- 8 -: (v) M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited, ITA Nos. 311/Mds/2013, 2915/Mds/2014 & 160/Mds/2013 and (vi) Cooper Corporation Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 866/PN/2014 and prayed for dismissing the appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on rec…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2915/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. Vikran Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 46

…10.3 We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decisions cited. The ld. Authorised Representative strongly placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) CIT vs. Woodward Governor 312 ITR 254. (ii) EID Parrys Ltd. vs. CIT 174 ITR 11. In our opinion these judgments cannot be applied to the facts of the case, as additional liability resulting on account of foreign exchange fluctuation in respect of foreign currency convertible notes cannot be ITA Nos.160 & 311/13 and :- 19 -: 2915/14 considered as a capital loss. In our view, loss on account of exchange fluctuation is in th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue in ITA No

ITA 311/CHNY/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. Vikran Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 46

…10.3 We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decisions cited. The ld. Authorised Representative strongly placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) CIT vs. Woodward Governor 312 ITR 254. (ii) EID Parrys Ltd. vs. CIT 174 ITR 11. In our opinion these judgments cannot be applied to the facts of the case, as additional liability resulting on account of foreign exchange fluctuation in respect of foreign currency convertible notes cannot be ITA Nos.160 & 311/13 and :- 19 -: 2915/14 considered as a capital loss. In our view, loss on account of exchange fluctuation is in th…

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue in ITA No

ITA 160/CHNY/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. Vikran Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, IRS, JCIT
Section 46

…10.3 We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decisions cited. The ld. Authorised Representative strongly placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) CIT vs. Woodward Governor 312 ITR 254. (ii) EID Parrys Ltd. vs. CIT 174 ITR 11. In our opinion these judgments cannot be applied to the facts of the case, as additional liability resulting on account of foreign exchange fluctuation in respect of foreign currency convertible notes cannot be ITA Nos.160 & 311/13 and :- 19 -: 2915/14 considered as a capital loss. In our view, loss on account of exchange fluctuation is in th…