Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

53 ITR 283Supreme Court of India1964#4065 most cited

What is Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Payment received for refraining from carrying on a competitive business is treated as a capital receipt. High Courts may misinterpret prior Supreme Court judgments like Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. in their decisions.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 53 ITR 283 · SC · non-compete fee · capital receipt · revenue expenditure · section 28 · negative covenant · enduring benefit

Sections most often in play

Section 54ECSection 54FSection 11UASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)non-compete feerevenue expendituresection 28transferpersonindiabusinesscompanysection 14documentinterest

Judgments citing Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

RAVI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

In the result, all remaining ground are allowed with the aforesaid directions

ITA 4186/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 28Section 28(1)

…AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws;  Venkatesh Vs CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 78 (Madras),  Smt. Maharani Usha Devi Vs CIT (1892) 8 Taxman 91 (MP),  CIT Vs S. Chenniappa Mudaliar (1967 64 ITR 213 (Mad),  Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co Vs CIT (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC),  CIT Vs Best and Co. (1966) 60 ITR 11(SC),  DCIT Vs Sandeep Dave (2019 109 taxmann.com 138 (Raipur-Trb),  Vodafone International Holding Limited Vs Union of India (341 ITR 1 SC),  Govindlal Mandhana Vs Add CIT in ITA No(s)3881, 3877, 3095, 3906/ Mum/2010 dated 15.02.2012,  Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT (2010) 126 ITD 100 (Mum) 11 Ravi…

SAMKEET ARYA HOMES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-10

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 37

…therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has rightly held that non-compete fees gives enduring benefit to the assessee and thus capital in nature. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Case (1964) 53 ITR 283. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee being limited liability partnership firm entered into retiring partner Shri Paras C. Pandit and paid total of Rs.70,00,000/- as non-compete charges…

SAEED MUSTAFA SHERVANI vs. COMM. OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/1200/2005HC Delhi13 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ment of this Court in Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:26.10.2023 20:38:32 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos.399/2005 & 1200/2005 Page 8 of 13 Gillanders case [(1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC)] , in which the facts were as follows: the assessee in that case carried on business in diverse fields besides acting as managing agents, shipping agents, purchasing agents and secretaries. The assessee also acted as importers and distributors on behalf of foreign principals and bought and sold on its own account. Under an agreement whic…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAEED MUSTAFA SHERVANI

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/399/2005HC Delhi13 Sept 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ment of this Court in Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:26.10.2023 20:38:32 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos.399/2005 & 1200/2005 Page 8 of 13 Gillanders case [(1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC)] , in which the facts were as follows: the assessee in that case carried on business in diverse fields besides acting as managing agents, shipping agents, purchasing agents and secretaries. The assessee also acted as importers and distributors on behalf of foreign principals and bought and sold on its own account. Under an agreement whic…

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

ITA 296/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

…no injury had been caused to the capital structure of the assessee and, therefore, the receipt was revenue in nature. The question here is whether the receipt is on capital account or revenue account. In the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Company Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC), the facts were that Gillanders Arbuthnot & Company was the sole selling agent and distributor in India of explosives manufactured by Imperial Chemical Industries (Export Ltd.), the latter being the principal company. The agency agreement was terminable at the option of the principal company. In May, 1945, the principal company wanted to set…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…e regarded as the source of the assessee's income, the payment made to compensate for cancellation of the agency agreement is normally a capital receipt. " Similar observations were made by the Apex Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnol & Co. Ltd. v, CIT (53 ITR 283). 5 Larsen & Toubro Asstt.Yrs 2001-02 & 2001-02 We submit that vide the object clause of our Memorandum of Association we are authorised to cany on the business which will result in direct competition with the business of the joint venture company. We further rely on following judicial pronouncements to support our view: i) Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Lt…

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

…clusion of law to be drawn from those facts [see CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1955) 35 ITR 148 (SC), P. H. Divecha vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC), and CIT vs. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC). 10. The question whether a particular income arising from the termination of one of the agencies of a multi agency concerned is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt is undoubtedly a difficult question to be answered. The difficulty is inherent in the problem itself. Decisions on this…

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

…clusion of law to be drawn from those facts [see CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1955) 35 ITR 148 (SC), P. H. Divecha vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC), and CIT vs. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC). 10. The question whether a particular income arising from the termination of one of the agencies of a multi agency concerned is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt is undoubtedly a difficult question to be answered. The difficulty is inherent in the problem itself. Decisions on this…

LATE SHRI T.T. VASU,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2247/CHNY/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Philip George (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Halen Ruby Jesintha (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 28

…which involves complex interplay between the parties involved. Therefore, the amount was nothing but a compensation for the three years’ profits which is on revenue front. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (53 ITR 283) would apply which held that where trading structure was not disturbed then the compensation would be revenue receipt. Since the assessee was refrained from carrying on the foreign exchange division for 3 years, the fees were revenue in nature and hence, taxable in his hand. Had the fees been embedded in the share price according to the share tran…

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…nvolve a question of law to be drawn from the facts. [CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in 'Karamchand Thapper And Bros. (P.) Ltd. and Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd.(supra). 6. The Bombay High Court dealt with the issue viz., where an assessee made an investment in its 100% s…

M/S ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated

ITA/184/2013HC Karnataka09 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 28

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.184 OF 2013 BETWEEN: M/S. ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRINIVAS G. SHIRGURKR PLOT NO.7 & 8, II PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU), JSS TOWERS 100 FEET RING ROAD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALRE-560085. ... RES…

SHIV RAJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI IV

C.A. No.-012044-012044 - 2016Supreme Court22 Jul 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…as paid for the sales in that year. Imperial Chemical Industries (Export) Ltd. took a formal undertaking from the assessee to refrain from selling or accepting any agency for explosives. 6. Two questions arose for determination in Gillanders case [(1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC)] , namely, whether the amounts received by the appellant for loss of agency was in normal course of business and therefore whether they constituted revenue receipt? The second question which arose before this Court was whether the amount received by the assessee (compensation) on the condition not to carry on a competitive business was…

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…away from the appellant for a period of 6 years. It is to compensate the loss of income from sports media activities for 6 years that the appellant had received the impugned sum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd v. CIT, 53 ITR 283 (SC) has held that compensation paid for agreeing to refrain from carrying on competitive business in the commodities; in respect of which the agency was terminated, or for the loss of goodwill would, prima facie, be of the nature of capital receipt. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guffic Cham P.Ltd v. CT, 332 ITR 602 (SC)…

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…away from the appellant for a period of 6 years. It is to compensate the loss of income from sports media activities for 6 years that the appellant had received the impugned sum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd v. CIT, 53 ITR 283 (SC) has held that compensation paid for agreeing to refrain from carrying on competitive business in the commodities; in respect of which the agency was terminated, or for the loss of goodwill would, prima facie, be of the nature of capital receipt. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guffic Cham P.Ltd v. CT, 332 ITR 602 (SC)…

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…away from the appellant for a period of 6 years. It is to compensate the loss of income from sports media activities for 6 years that the appellant had received the impugned sum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd v. CIT, 53 ITR 283 (SC) has held that compensation paid for agreeing to refrain from carrying on competitive business in the commodities; in respect of which the agency was terminated, or for the loss of goodwill would, prima facie, be of the nature of capital receipt. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guffic Cham P.Ltd v. CT, 332 ITR 602 (SC)…

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…away from the appellant for a period of 6 years. It is to compensate the loss of income from sports media activities for 6 years that the appellant had received the impugned sum. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd v. CIT, 53 ITR 283 (SC) has held that compensation paid for agreeing to refrain from carrying on competitive business in the commodities; in respect of which the agency was terminated, or for the loss of goodwill would, prima facie, be of the nature of capital receipt. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guffic Cham P.Ltd v. CT, 332 ITR 602 (SC)…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S. MITSU LIMITED,, DAMAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3510/AHD/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…g from carrying on competitive business was a capital receipt. This dichotomy has not been appreciated by the High Court in its impugned judgement. The High Court has misinterpreted the judgement of this court in Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.'s case [(1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC)]. In the present case, the Department has not impugned the genuineness of the transaction. In the present case, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Payment received as non-competition fee under a P…

M/S. MITSU PRIVATE LIMITED,,VAPI vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1000/AHD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 May 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sandip Gosain & Shri O. P. Meenav. ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं././././I "नधा"र अपीलाथ" Appellant S .T.A No. ण N वष"/A Y: 1 1671/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 2 1371/Ah 2002- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 03 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Co.No.1 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant 3 84/Ahd/ 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of 2006 Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 4 1672/Ah 2003- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2006 04 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 5 1764/Ah 2003- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2006 04 Commissioner Of 304/2, Iind Phase, Income Tax-Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Circle, Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q 6 1000/Ah 2002- M/S. Mitsu Limited, V. Assistant D/2016 03 304/2, Iind Phase, Commissioner Of Gidc, Vapi 396195 Income Tax-Vapi Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q Circle, Vapi 7 3510/Ah 2000- Assistant V. M/S. Mitsu Limited, D/2016 01 Commissioner Of Page 2 Of 83 Mitsu Ltd. V. Acit- Vapi/I.T.A. No.1671-1371,Co-184,1672-1764,1614 &1000/Ahd/2006/A.Y.02-03,03-04,06-07.02-03 Income Tax-Vapi 304/2, Iind Phase, Circle, Vapi Gidc, Vapi 396195 Pan: Aaccm 2764 Q

Section 143

…g from carrying on competitive business was a capital receipt. This dichotomy has not been appreciated by the High Court in its impugned judgement. The High Court has misinterpreted the judgement of this court in Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd.'s case [(1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC)]. In the present case, the Department has not impugned the genuineness of the transaction. In the present case, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. Payment received as non-competition fee under a P…

BUTTERFLY MARKETING PVT. LTD. (BY SUCCESSOR V.M. CHETTIAR & SONS INDIA P. LTD.),KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3079/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3079/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. M/s. Butterfly Marketing Private Ltd, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of By Successor V.M. Chetiar & Sons India Income Tax, Pvt Ltd, Corporate Circle 1(2) (now V.M. Chettiar and Sons India LLP) Chennai 600 034. E-34, Second floor, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Egattur Village, Navalur 600 130. Kanche…

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

…otomy between the receipt of compensation by the assessee for loss of business arising out of the negative covenant compensation for loss of agency would be a revenue receipt as noted in the decision in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC). The assessee in that case was dealing with explosives. That agency was terminated and by way of compensation, Imperial Chemical Industries (Export) Ltd, paid two fifths of the commission accrued on past sales an took a formal undertaking from the assessee to refrain from selling or accepting any agency for explosives. This was considered by…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (53 ITR 283) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax