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

11 ITR 513Reported decision1943#4120 most cited

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.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. CIT · 11 ITR 513 · salami · premium · capital receipt · capital asset · lease · acquisition of right · payment on capital account · royalties

Issues it is cited on

section 2(24)section 26section 12section 139section 153appeal before the tribunalprevious yearsection 15section 13section 143personcompany

Judgments citing Judicial Committee in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa

M/S Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company –

ITA 347/IND/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 347 To 351/Ind/2013, 760 & 761/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" // A.Ys.: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Kendra Vikas Nigam Income-Tax, (Indore) Limited, 3(1), Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Aadcm7525Q

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Munshi

…nt on capital account. The para 4 to 8 are reproduced herein below: 4. The distinction between premium and rent was brought out by the Judicial Committee in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa[1943] 11 ITR 513 thus : "It (salami) is a single payment made for the acquisition of the right of the lessee to enjoy the benefits granted to them by the lease. That general right may properly be regarded as a capital asset, and the money paid to purchase it may properly be held to be a payment on capital account. But the royalties are on a different footing".…

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…

ITO (TDS) 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Enam Financial Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4421/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri C.N.Prasad

For Appellant: Shri A.K.NayakFor Respondent: Shri Manish Desai
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)

…paid was the consideration for the acquisition of such leasehold rights in the property. In this regard, a reference was made by the ld.CIT(A) to the decision in the case of Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income tax, (1943) 11 ITR 513 (PC) wherein it was held that the payment of salami under the lease agreement was a capital receipt being a single payment made for the acquisition of the right by the lessee to enjoy the benefits granted to them under the lease. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Member for the Board of Agricultural Income Tax…

ITO (TDS) 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Enam Financial Consultants P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3639/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja: (A.Y : 2009-10) Ito (Tds) 1(2)(2) Vs. M/S Enam Financial R.No.812 K.G. Mittal Hospital Bldg., Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Charni Road 44, 2Nd Floor, Khatau Mumbai – 400 002 Building, Sahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Bank Street Mumbai – 400 023 Pan : Aaace1052H (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs Beena Santosh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Respondent By : Shri Manish D Desai सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2017 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 22/02/2017

For Appellant: Mrs Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Manish D Desai
Section 194Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)

…paid was the consideration for the acquisition of such leasehold rights in the property. In this regard, a reference was made by the ld.CIT(A) to the decision in the case of Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income tax, (1943) 11 ITR 513 (PC) wherein it was held that the payment of salami under the lease agreement was a capital receipt being a single payment made for the acquisition of the right by the lessee to enjoy the benefits granted to them under the lease. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Member for the Board of Agricultural Income Tax…

M/S Givo Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2041/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…The motive of payer is not relevant while deciding whether a receipt is revenue or capital in nature. [Po H. Divecha V. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC)] (xiii)In the judgment of the Board in the case of Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh V. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 513 (PC), delivered by Lord Russell of Killowen, their Lordships of the Privy Council, after referring to the aforesaid two decisions, have observed as follows (p. 522): "The word 'income' is not limited by the words 'profits' and 'gains'. Anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted." 8. We h…

ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Dr . Vasant J Rath Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

ITA 844/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Income Tax Officer 18(2)(1), Room No.110, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…bserved that both the decisions pertain to the same issue i.e. whether lease premium was a revenue or a capital expenditure. The Id. CIT(A) also discussed the decision in the case of Raja Benedur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income-tax 11 ITR 513 PC wherein it has been held that the payment which' under ·the lease is exigible by the lesser may be classed under 3 categories (1) Premium or salary (2) the minimum royalty and (3) the royalty per ton. The salary have been rightly treated as capital receipt. It is a single payment made for the acquisition of the right of the lessees to enjoy the…

ITO (TDS) 2(5), Mumbai vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 194

…f rent and lease premium under the Income Tax Act, it is noted that the distinction between the lease premium and rent was first brought out by the Judicial Committee in the case of Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh of Ramgarh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 11 ITR 513 (PC) wherein it has been held that: “The payments which under the lease were exigible by the lessor may be classed under three categories: (i) the salami or premium ; (ii) the minimum royalty ; (iii) the royalties per ton. The salami has been rightly treated as a capital receipt. It was a single payment made for the acquisition of the right of th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ansal Buildwell Ltd

The appeals are dismissed with no

ITA/406/2007HC Delhi04 Mar 2008

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

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19^^ May, 2008 Date oforder: 2"^ July, 2008 LPANo. 406/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal & Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus KEY POINT Respondent Through Mr. Sanjay Goswamy and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents. Ms. Iram Majid and Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocates for Respondent GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER This appeal is dismissed in terms of the common judgment of 2nd July 2008 passed in LPA No. 319 of 2007 titled "Municipal Corp…

Judicial Committee in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa (11 ITR 513) — Cited in 28 Judgments | BharatTax