ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (

75 ITR 147High Court1970#11786 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (

Continental Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4710/DEL/2010[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2020AY 1995-96

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

…based on assessee’s profit is not decisive of the nature of receipt. – Associated Oil Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1960) 40 ITR 118 (Mad.) b) Compensation for dissolution of profit making apparatus is capital receipt. – CIT vs. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd. (1970) 75 ITR 147 (Mad.) 29.5 Section 45 provides that any profit & gains from transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in the Act be chargeable to income tax under the head Capital Gains and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. As mentioned earlier that at the on…

Siva Industries and Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…and relied upon the following case laws: 1. CIT v. Saurashtra Cement 2. S.Zoraster & Co. v. CIT (322 ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (259 ITR 116) 5. CIT Madras v South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (75 ITR 147) 6. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs KIT (TS 467 ITAT 2013) 7. ACIT vs 3i Infotech Ltd.(TD 417 ITAT 2013) 8. CIT & Others Vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. (366 ITR 270) 9. Khanna and Anandham vs. CIT in ITA No.1286/2008, dt. 29.01.2013 5.3.2 Considering the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant, perusal of all the agreements and reman…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…and relied upon the following case laws: 1. CIT v. Saurashtra Cement 2. S.Zoraster & Co. v. CIT (322 ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (259 ITR 116) 5. CIT Madras v South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (75 ITR 147) 6. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs KIT (TS 467 ITAT 2013) 7. ACIT vs 3i Infotech Ltd.(TD 417 ITAT 2013) 8. CIT & Others Vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. (366 ITR 270) 9. Khanna and Anandham vs. CIT in ITA No.1286/2008, dt. 29.01.2013 5.3.2 Considering the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant, perusal of all the agreements and reman…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Limited, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…and relied upon the following case laws: 1. CIT v. Saurashtra Cement 2. S.Zoraster & Co. v. CIT (322 ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (259 ITR 116) 5. CIT Madras v South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (75 ITR 147) 6. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs KIT (TS 467 ITAT 2013) 7. ACIT vs 3i Infotech Ltd.(TD 417 ITAT 2013) 8. CIT & Others Vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. (366 ITR 270) 9. Khanna and Anandham vs. CIT in ITA No.1286/2008, dt. 29.01.2013 5.3.2 Considering the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant, perusal of all the agreements and reman…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Siva Ventures Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

…and relied upon the following case laws: 1. CIT v. Saurashtra Cement 2. S.Zoraster & Co. v. CIT (322 ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. (259 ITR 116) 5. CIT Madras v South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (75 ITR 147) 6. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs KIT (TS 467 ITAT 2013) 7. ACIT vs 3i Infotech Ltd.(TD 417 ITAT 2013) 8. CIT & Others Vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. (366 ITR 270) 9. Khanna and Anandham vs. CIT in ITA No.1286/2008, dt. 29.01.2013 5.3.2 Considering the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant, perusal of all the agreements and reman…

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

…asset or that the source of income ceases to exist, it would be a capital receipt [Glenboig Union Fire Clay Co. Ltd. vs. IRC (1922) 12 Tax Cases 427, P.L.M. Firm vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 856 (Mad) : TC38R.682 and CIT vs. South India Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1970) 75 ITR 147 (Mad) : TC38R.863], In CIT vs. A.S. Wardekar (2005) 199 CTR (Cal) 255 it was held that amount received by assessee for entering into restrictive covenant which restrained the assessee from undertaking any activity, economic, industrial or otherwise, which in any way came in conflict with the activities of the payer company, was a capital receipt.…

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)

…, therefore, it is on capital field. In support of his conclusion, he relied upon following decisions: 18 M/s LML Ltd ITA No. :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…

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)

…, therefore, it is on capital field. In support of his conclusion, he relied upon following decisions: 18 M/s LML Ltd ITA No. :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…

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)

…, therefore, it is on capital field. In support of his conclusion, he relied upon following decisions: 18 M/s LML Ltd ITA No. :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…

ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(161 ITR 386) 4. CIT v. T.I & M Sales Ltd. ( (75 ITR 147) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax