Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

53 ITR 283Supreme Court of India1964#4060 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 366,470 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)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

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

Dy.C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SH. R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. CIT 1 (2) Vs Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, Vanijya Aayakar Bhawan, Central Revenue, Building, Civil Lines Bhawan, Jail Road, Sai Raipur (CG) Nagar, Raipur PAN AACCR4411P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. R. K. Singh, CIT DR Respondent by Sh. Nikhilesh Begani, CA Date of hearing: 08/08/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 06…

V.C. Nannapaneni vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITTA/159/2005HC Telangana05 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr. K. Vasant KumarFor Respondent: Ms. K. Mamata
Section 10(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD I.T.T.A. Nos.159 and 160 of 2005 DATED:05-01-2018 Between: V.C. Nannapaneni … Appellant And Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad-2 Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh Hyderabad … Respondent COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. K. Vasant Kumar COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms. K. Mamata THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CVNR, J & TA, J ITTAs 159 & 160/2005 2 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nag…

Hemant Prabhakar Pradhan, Thane vs. ACIT Cir-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6794/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6794/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hemant Prabhakar The Acit, Circle-1, बनाम/ Pradhan, R. No. 22, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Vs. C-1101, Sunglow, Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16-Z Shreeji Ville Complex, Wagle Industrial Estate, Almeida Road, Thane-400 604 Panchpakhadi, Thane (W)-400 601 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaspp 1387R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri M.C. Naniwadekar Shri Randhir Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Naniwadekar
Section 28Section 45(1)

…the receipt of compensation by the assessee for loss of business arising out of the negative covenant and that compensation for loss of agency would be a revenue receipt as noted in the decision in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283. 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 and took a formal undertaking from the assessee to refrain from selling or accepting any agency for explosives. This was considered by the…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Lml Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3666/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…:3668/Mum/2004 ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 ITA No. : 3666/Mum/2011 S. Case Law Citation No 1 CIT v South India Flour Mills P Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 147 (Mad) 2 Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 471 (Mad 5 CIT v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804(SC) 6 CIT v Baaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) 7 Break, Inspector of taxes v Robson [1942] 25 Tax case 33(HL) 8 CIT v Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) 9 Genboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1922] 12 TC…

The ACIT RG-3(2) vs. M/S. Lml Ltd

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3668/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…:3668/Mum/2004 ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 ITA No. : 3666/Mum/2011 S. Case Law Citation No 1 CIT v South India Flour Mills P Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 147 (Mad) 2 Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 471 (Mad 5 CIT v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804(SC) 6 CIT v Baaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) 7 Break, Inspector of taxes v Robson [1942] 25 Tax case 33(HL) 8 CIT v Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) 9 Genboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1922] 12 TC…

M/S. Lml Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG.3(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3540/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…:3668/Mum/2004 ITA No. : 3540/Mum/2004 ITA No. : 3666/Mum/2011 S. Case Law Citation No 1 CIT v South India Flour Mills P Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 147 (Mad) 2 Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) 3 Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (P) Ltd v CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) 4 CIT v Sheshasayee Bros (P) Ltd. [1999] 239 ITR 471 (Mad 5 CIT v Prabhu Dayal [1971] 82 ITR 804(SC) 6 CIT v Baaji Chitra Mandir [1985] 154 ITR 777 (AP) 7 Break, Inspector of taxes v Robson [1942] 25 Tax case 33(HL) 8 CIT v Best & Co. (P) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) 9 Genboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1922] 12 TC…

Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA - 183 / 2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…gency in the usual course of business and the restrictive covenant. The manner of such apportionment has perforce to be left to the assessing authorities.” 18. In Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC) the facts of the case were somewhat akin to the facts in the case of Best & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The agency was terminated and by way of compensation, the Imperial Chemical Industries (Exports) Ltd. paid for the first three years after the termination of the tenancy 2/5ths of the commission accrued on its sales in the territory of the…

(M/S. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd.) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-I)

ITA/183/2008HC Delhi19 Nov 2010

…gency in the usual course of business and the restrictive covenant. The manner of such apportionment has perforce to be left to the assessing authorities.” 18. In Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta, (1964) 53 ITR 283 (SC) the facts of the case were somewhat akin to the facts in the case of Best & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The agency was terminated and by way of compensation, the Imperial Chemical Industries (Exports) Ltd. paid for the first three years after the termination of the tenancy 2/5ths of the commission accrued on its sales in the territory of the…

Rohitasava Chand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/611/2007HC Delhi20 Mar 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

…nconnected with his office and operative only after he ceased to hold that office and, therefore, it was not taxable under Schedule E of the Income-tax Acts. This Court in Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta [1964] 53 ITR 283 accepted the said principle and held that the compensation paid for agreeing to refrain from carrying on competitive ITA No.611/2007 Page 10 of 16 business in the commodities in respect of the agency terminated or for loss of goodwill was prima facie of the nature of a capital receipt. In the present case, the covenant was an indep…