Judicial Committee in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa (11 ITR 513)

Q: What is Judicial Committee in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa authority for?

A single payment made for acquiring the right to benefits granted by a lease, known as 'salami' or premium, is considered a capital receipt. This right is a capital asset, and the payment to acquire it is on capital account.

Q: How many judgments cite Judicial Committee in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite Judicial Committee in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa (11 ITR 513), spanning 2008 to 2024.

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…R 521 at 529) (PC); and CIT v Jaora Oil (129 ITR 423 at 425) (MP). This above definition was followed in Gopal Saran Narain Singh v CIT (3 ITR 237 at 242) by Lord Russell of Killowen, the Privy Council in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. CIT (11 ITR 513). The Allahabad High Court in Rani Amrit Kunwar v. CIT (14 ITR 561 at 570) held that: "Anything which can properly be described as income, is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted." Now, a question arises as to whether capital receipt can be regarded as income. The compensation for repudiation of service agreement or for loss Economic Ex…

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…R 521 at 529) (PC); and CIT v Jaora Oil (129 ITR 423 at 425) (MP). This above definition was followed in Gopal Saran Narain Singh v CIT (3 ITR 237 at 242) by Lord Russell of Killowen, the Privy Council in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. CIT (11 ITR 513). The Allahabad High Court in Rani Amrit Kunwar v. CIT (14 ITR 561 at 570) held that: "Anything which can properly be described as income, is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted." Now, a question arises as to whether capital receipt can be regarded as income. The compensation for repudiation of service agreement or for loss Economic Ex…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Gomantak Eximis Ltd

ITA/1163/2018HC Delhi15 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 115JSection 2Section 2(14)(iii)

…cases revealed that they were concerned with ascertaining the meaning of that word in the context of the income-tax legislation. The Supreme Court referred with approval to the following observations of Lord Wright in Kamakshya Narain Singh v. CIT, [1943] 11 ITR 513, 521 (PC): “Income, it is true, is a word difficult and perhaps impossible to define in any precise general formula. It is a word of the broadest connotation.” 21. The Supreme Court held that it would be wrong to interpret the word “income” in the said entry 54 in the light of any supposed English legislative practice. The Supreme Court also…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ambreen Projects & Infrastrcture (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4037/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69B

…T. v. G.R. Karthikeyan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 222. The Honble Apex Court had made the folowing observation; “Para 7. It is not easy to define income. The definition in the Act is an inclusive one. As said by Lord Wright in Kamakshya Narayan Singh v. CIT [(1943) 11 ITR 513 (PC)] “income ... is a word difficult and perhaps impossible to define in any precise general formula. It is a word of the broadest connotation”. In Gopal Saran Narain Singh v. CIT [(1935) 3 ITR 237 (PC)] the Privy Council pointed out that “anything that can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted”. This…

Parvathaneni Ramakrishna, Vijayawada vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleparvathaneni Ramakrishna, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), D.No. 54-20-9/5, Flat No.6, Vijayawada. Deepika Apartment, Srinagar Colony, Vijayawada. Pan No. Aiypp 4347 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…single or an isolated transaction can be regarded as an adventure in the nature of trade. In this connection we may, with respect, refer to the comment made by Lord Wright in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1943] 11 ITR 513 that " it is clear that such picturesque similes cannot be used to limit the true character of income in general ". We are inclined to think that, in dealing with the very prosaic and sometimes complex questions arising under the Income-tax Act, use of metaphors, however poetic and picturesque, may not help to clarify the position but may instead…

Sika India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 911/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2019AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sika India Pvt. Ltd………………………….……........................................................……………….…......Appellant Commercial Complex-Ii 620, Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata – 700 034 [Pan : Aaecs 1119 F] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(2), Kolkata……..................……….…....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)

…Court referred to the observation of Jud the amount as "Salami". The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the observation of Judicial Committee in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. CIT Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. CIT (1943) 11 ITR 513, (1943) 11 ITR 513, 519 (PC) thus "Salami is a single payment made for the acquisition of the right of the lessees 519 (PC) thus "Salami is a single payment made for the acquisition of the right of the lessees 519 (PC) thus "Salami is a single payment made for the acquisition of the right of the lessees to enjoy the benefits granted to them by the…

Cable Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6558/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Perey Pareliwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 56

…"profits" and "gains" and anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under this Act, unless expressly exempted. Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narain Singh vs. CIT, (1935) 3 ITR 237, 242 (PC); Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh vs. CIT, (1943) 11 ITR 513, 522 (PC); Kedar Narain Singh vs. CIT (1938) 6 ITR 157, 161(AIl). Thus, in the light of above factual references and judicial propositions, it is held that there is no genuine Gift of Equity Shares and the worth of share taken by the Appellant is evidently a taxable income hence, addition so made of Rs.49,02,00,000/- is sustained.” 6. The Ld. A.…