Govindbhai C. Patel v. DCIT

381 ITR 1Reported decision2016#20689 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 143(3)business

Judgments citing Govindbhai C. Patel v. DCIT

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

…lieu of a transfer'. Resultantly, such compensation would not be amenable to tax under the head of capital gains and was in essence a capital receipt. j. The New Delhi Bench of AAR in the case of Lead Counsel of Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF), In re: [2016] 381 ITR 1 held that Settlement amount received for surrender of capital asset of 'right to sue' has to be treated as 'capital receipt' not liable to tax. k. In the following cases, it is held that settlement compensation in lieu of giving up the right to sue/ claims is a capital receipt not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee: (a) CIT vs. Abbasbhoy…

Sanjay Shankarrao Jadhao, Amravati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 250

…interpreting "initial assessment year" as mentioned in subsection (5) of that section for which the Standing Counsels/D.Rs. be suitably instructed. The above be brought to the notice of all Assessing Officers concerned. [Circular No.1, dated 15-2-2016: (2016) 381 ITR 1-2 (St.).” 11. The reliance placed by the learned CIT(A) on Plastiblends India Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2017] 86 taxmann.com 137 (SC), is distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the same is in different footings. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside…

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 867/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Savita Oil बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-47 Technologies Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs7934A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiro Rai Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Following Grounds Raised By The Assessee Is Neither Being Pressed Nor Does They Survive For The Reasons Given Therein As Under: - “(I) Ground.4- Disallowance U/S 14A In View Of Order Giving Effect To Cit(A) Order & Order U/S 154, Not Pressed Qua Balance Disallowance Of Rs.7,74,722/- (Ii) Ground No. 5 Disallowance As Capital Expenditure Since Depreciation (Ground No.6) Allowed, Not Pressed. (Iii) Ground No. 6 – Allowance Of Depreciation In Order U/S 154, Ao Has Allowed Depreciation. Hence, Does Not Survive.

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 158BSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.867/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/s. Savita Oil बिधम/ DCIT, Central Circle-47 Technologies Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Road, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACS7934A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Hiro Rai Revenue by: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 26/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/06/2…

Bhojison Infreastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2449/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2449/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, A.R

Section 6

…-09) ITA No. 3116/Ahd/2015 (Ahmedabad – Trib) vii. Saytam Food Specialties (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 194 (Jaipur – Trib) viii. Govindbhai C. Patel vs. DCIT [2010] 36 SOT 0270 (Ahmedabad- Trib.) ix. Lead Counsel of Qualified Settlement Fund [2016] 381 ITR 1 (AAR) x. Aberdeen Claims Administration INC. [2016] 381 ITR 55 (AAR) xi. Satyam Food Specialities (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 194 (Jaipur-Trib) 8.2 The learned AR accordingly submitted that the consideration received in lieu of ‘right to sue’ is a capital receipt which is not taxable at all since there is no property involved in it fo…