Emil Webber v. CIT

200 ITR 483Supreme Court of India1993#4373 most cited

What is Emil Webber v. CIT authority for?

The definition of 'income' under section 2(24) is inclusive, adding artificial categories without losing its natural connotation. Perquisites under section 17(2) are taxable as 'salary' when paid by an employer on behalf of an employee to discharge an obligation the employee would otherwise bear.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Emil Webber v. CIT · section 2(24) · income definition · section 17 · salary · perquisites · employer obligation · taxable income

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 2(24)Section 2(47)

Issues it is cited on

section 17section 2(24)section 10salarysection 15transferpersonindiabusinesscompanyinterest

Judgments citing Emil Webber v. CIT

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

…. Limited: [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) held, "It may be broadly stated that what is received for loss of capital is a capital receipt; what is received as profit in a trading transaction is taxable income". e. The Supreme Court in the case of Emil Webber vs. CIT: 200 ITR 483, held that the definition of "income" in clause (24) of section 2 of the Act is an inclusive definition; adds several artificial categories to the concept of income but on that account the expression "income" does not lose its natural connotation. 10 f. While considering the issue of taxation of compensation received on surrender of tenancy righ…

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…n is binding on the other party. The nature of the income accruing was also adjudicated by the coordinate Bench keeping in view the wide amplitude of Section 2(24) of the Act and considering the findings of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Emil Webber v. CIT 1993 200 ITR 483. xiii. Keeping in view the factual matrix of the two cases and in depth analysis of all the issues raised, the inevitable inference is that the decision in the case of Mahindra applies with all force in the case of Dabur as well. A decision based on sound principles cannot be brushed aside by pointing minor differences here and there, the differe…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 866/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 57Section 57A

…treated as income in the hands of the assessee as it is received by the as with an obligation to spend as per Section 57A of the Co-operative Societies Act. For the purpose, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Emil Webber Vs. CIT 200 ITR 483 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee Federation formed for providing education and training to the employees of the members of the co-operative societies. Therefore the contribution received from the member co-operative societies to be considered as income of the assessee as the assessee…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 865/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 57Section 57A

…treated as income in the hands of the assessee as it is received by the as with an obligation to spend as per Section 57A of the Co-operative Societies Act. For the purpose, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Emil Webber Vs. CIT 200 ITR 483 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee Federation formed for providing education and training to the employees of the members of the co-operative societies. Therefore the contribution received from the member co-operative societies to be considered as income of the assessee as the assessee…

M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 864/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 57Section 57A

…treated as income in the hands of the assessee as it is received by the as with an obligation to spend as per Section 57A of the Co-operative Societies Act. For the purpose, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Emil Webber Vs. CIT 200 ITR 483 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee Federation formed for providing education and training to the employees of the members of the co-operative societies. Therefore the contribution received from the member co-operative societies to be considered as income of the assessee as the assessee…

THE ACIT,, KOTTAYAM vs. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)

…e same. The Ld. DR submitted that the I.T.A. Nos.440&441/Coch/2018 concept of income as per section 2(24) of the Act is an inclusive one. It was submitted that this aspect was reiterated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Emil Webber vs. CIT (200 ITR 483) wherein it was observed that definition of ‘income’ in section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless it is exempted under one or other provisions of the Act. Further, it was submitted that in the case of CIT vs. G.R. Karthikeyan (211 ITR 866), the Supreme Court hel…

THE ACIT,, KOTTAYAM vs. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 440/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)

…e same. The Ld. DR submitted that the I.T.A. Nos.440&441/Coch/2018 concept of income as per section 2(24) of the Act is an inclusive one. It was submitted that this aspect was reiterated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Emil Webber vs. CIT (200 ITR 483) wherein it was observed that definition of ‘income’ in section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless it is exempted under one or other provisions of the Act. Further, it was submitted that in the case of CIT vs. G.R. Karthikeyan (211 ITR 866), the Supreme Court hel…

SHRI ASHISH TANDON, ,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1954/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 54FSection 55

…result of fruit of his employment, but, as it has not been received from the employer, it is taxable under the head ‘income from other sources’. As we observe so, we find support from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Emil Webber Vs CIT [(1993) 200 ITR 483 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: The question then arises under which head of income should the said income be placed. Inasmuch as the assessee is not an employee of Ballarpur, which made the payment, it cannot be brought within the purview of section 17 of the Act. It must necessarily be placed under sub sect…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR. VI, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is partly allowed

ITA 611/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…nd no 2 is allowed.” The Revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us on the following ground:- “(ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Emil Webber –vs- CIT (1993) [200 ITR 483] that anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless it is exempted under one or the other provision of the Act, and subsequently, has erred in Law as well as facts of the case in directing to delete the addition of Rs.43,05,78,782/- made on account of Gain on Settlement of Loan.” ITA No.609-612/Kol/2013 & CO.…

M/S GIVO LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2041/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2041/Del/2013 (Assessment Year2006-07) Givo Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), C/o Vinod Kumar New Delhi Bindal & Co. C.A., Shiv Sushil Bhawan, D-219, Vivek Vihar I, New Delhi – 110 095 GIR / PAN :AAACG3928L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA Respondent by :Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the asses…

MAHINDRA TELECOMMUNICATIONS INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

…to the concept thereof, is income, as used or understood in the common parlance, with the Act only listing down, per the defining section (s. 2(24)), inexhaustively, the various types of income. Reference in this context be made to Emil Webber vs. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 483 (SC). The nature of income which falls to arise to the assessee is to be in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the investment under reference only represents an opportunity to the assessee to earn income from an investment, made in the course of its business as an investment company, returning the income by way of ‘c…

ADDL CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PETRIKUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6421/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…gn allowance paid to them by the assessee company cannot be considered as part of salary and so provisions of Sec 40(a)(iii) ITA No.1741&6322/10 ITA No.2686&6421/12 are not applicable. Tribunal has noted that similar situation arose in the case of Emil Webber 200 ITR 483 wherein he was deputed by a foreign company to an Indian company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that overseas allowances were not chargeable under the head "Salary" and therefore, Sec 40(a)(iii) does not apply. Tribunal has noted that similar views are endorsed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs G Eroppino Giovanni 196 ITR…

ADDL CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…gn allowance paid to them by the assessee company cannot be considered as part of salary and so provisions of Sec 40(a)(iii) ITA No.1741&6322/10 ITA No.2686&6421/12 are not applicable. Tribunal has noted that similar situation arose in the case of Emil Webber 200 ITR 483 wherein he was deputed by a foreign company to an Indian company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that overseas allowances were not chargeable under the head "Salary" and therefore, Sec 40(a)(iii) does not apply. Tribunal has noted that similar views are endorsed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs G Eroppino Giovanni 196 ITR…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNAITONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6322/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…gn allowance paid to them by the assessee company cannot be considered as part of salary and so provisions of Sec 40(a)(iii) ITA No.1741&6322/10 ITA No.2686&6421/12 are not applicable. Tribunal has noted that similar situation arose in the case of Emil Webber 200 ITR 483 wherein he was deputed by a foreign company to an Indian company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that overseas allowances were not chargeable under the head "Salary" and therefore, Sec 40(a)(iii) does not apply. Tribunal has noted that similar views are endorsed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs G Eroppino Giovanni 196 ITR…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1741/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…gn allowance paid to them by the assessee company cannot be considered as part of salary and so provisions of Sec 40(a)(iii) ITA No.1741&6322/10 ITA No.2686&6421/12 are not applicable. Tribunal has noted that similar situation arose in the case of Emil Webber 200 ITR 483 wherein he was deputed by a foreign company to an Indian company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that overseas allowances were not chargeable under the head "Salary" and therefore, Sec 40(a)(iii) does not apply. Tribunal has noted that similar views are endorsed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs G Eroppino Giovanni 196 ITR…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4658/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…gn allowance paid to them by the assessee company cannot be considered as part of salary and so provisions of Sec 40(a)(iii) ITA No.1741&6322/10 ITA No.2686&6421/12 are not applicable. Tribunal has noted that similar situation arose in the case of Emil Webber 200 ITR 483 wherein he was deputed by a foreign company to an Indian company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that overseas allowances were not chargeable under the head "Salary" and therefore, Sec 40(a)(iii) does not apply. Tribunal has noted that similar views are endorsed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs G Eroppino Giovanni 196 ITR…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4657/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…gn allowance paid to them by the assessee company cannot be considered as part of salary and so provisions of Sec 40(a)(iii) ITA No.1741&6322/10 ITA No.2686&6421/12 are not applicable. Tribunal has noted that similar situation arose in the case of Emil Webber 200 ITR 483 wherein he was deputed by a foreign company to an Indian company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that overseas allowances were not chargeable under the head "Salary" and therefore, Sec 40(a)(iii) does not apply. Tribunal has noted that similar views are endorsed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs G Eroppino Giovanni 196 ITR…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PETROLEUM INDIA INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of revenue are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4439/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4439,4657&4658/Mum/2009

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 91Section 91(1)

…gn allowance paid to them by the assessee company cannot be considered as part of salary and so provisions of Sec 40(a)(iii) ITA No.1741&6322/10 ITA No.2686&6421/12 are not applicable. Tribunal has noted that similar situation arose in the case of Emil Webber 200 ITR 483 wherein he was deputed by a foreign company to an Indian company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that overseas allowances were not chargeable under the head "Salary" and therefore, Sec 40(a)(iii) does not apply. Tribunal has noted that similar views are endorsed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs G Eroppino Giovanni 196 ITR…

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. SRI. PRAMOD H. LELE, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee appeals are dismissed

ITA 5581/MUM/2004[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5581/Mum/2004 & 3691/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2004-05) Asst. Cit, Room No. 447, Pramod H. Lele, बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 5/7, Chandrashekhar Co-Op Soc., Mumbi-400 020 Swami Nityanand Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapl 6012 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ganesh Bare ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.07.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Two Appeals By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xi, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Arising Out Of Separate Orders, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2002-03 & 2004-05. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Taxability Of The Gain On The Transfer Of Sweat Equity Shares During The Relevant Previous Years Allotted To The Assessee. While The Revenue Seeks To Bring The Entire Gain To Tax As Short-Term Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh BareFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 56

…ad of income, including ‘capital gains’. Again, the tribunal also upheld the Revenue’s view that the benefit arising is in the nature of income, assessable as income from other sources, with reference to the decisions in the case of Emil Webber vs. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 483 (SC) (affirming the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court reported at [1978] 114 ITR 515 (Bom)) and of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Kedar Narain Singh vs. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All). The entire order merits careful reading; it concluding as under: ‘20. For the reasons set out above, we vacate the impugned relief granted by the…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.M.G.Brothers Finance Ltd

ITTA/45/2007HC Telangana05 Dec 2013
For Appellant: MR. PREBEN SMEDEGAAD JENSONFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940 ITA.No. 22 of 2007 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 1268(COCH)/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 28.9.2006 APPELLANT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: MR. PREBEN SMEDEGAAD JENSON, HTAS DENAMARK, C/O.FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, UDYOGAMANDAL. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOCHI. BY SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES)…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2