Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT

6 ITR 157High Court1938#7074 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 2017Section 56 of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 57section 56income from other sourcessection 142(1)section 143(2)companybusinesssection 143interestsection 250documentindia

Judgments citing Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT

MAX SQUARE LTD,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD-5(1)(5), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4100/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Max Square Ltd. Vs Ito L-12, Max Tower, Sector-16-B Ward-5(1)(5) Gautam Budha Nagar Noida Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Aagcn5808G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Bhalla, Ca & Shri Nitin Kumar Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Gouranga Chandra Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2020-21/10308419 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 07.12.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief Acts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estates Development & Started Construction Of Commercial Complex Project “Max Square” At Sector 129, Noida. The Assessee Borrowed Funds From Indusind Bank Amounting To Inr 29.45 Crores For The Construction & Further Raised Funds Through Issue Of Equity/Ccd’S. The Funds Which Remained Un-Utilized, Were Invested Temporary In Fdrs From Which Interest Was Received Of Inr 63,77,502/- & Was Credited To The Cost Of Construction. However, The Ao Has Held The Same As Taxable Under The Head “Income From Other Sources”.

Section 143(3)Section 250

…ompany will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilizing the borrowed funds as its income. It was rightly pointed out in the case of Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All) that "anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted ". The interest earned by the assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not detr…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANGERE SMART CITY LIMITED, DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 56

…frastructure Development & Finance Corpn. (2006) 284 ITR 582 (Karn) and (2009) 15 ITR 301 (Karn). The AO also relied on the ITA Nos. 857 & 858/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 14 judgment of CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. [1932] 59 LA. 206 and Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All.). Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the AO held that interest income of Rs.13,90,47,536 as income u/s. 56 of the Act. The AO also referred to similar cases in the case of Haveri Nimrithi Kendra & Davangere Nimrithi Kendra where similar grant received from Govt and interest received on such grant was offered as income withou…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR DAVANAGERE SMART CITY LIMITED , DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar E., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 56

…frastructure Development & Finance Corpn. (2006) 284 ITR 582 (Karn) and (2009) 15 ITR 301 (Karn). The AO also relied on the ITA Nos. 857 & 858/Bang/2023 Page 4 of 14 judgment of CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. [1932] 59 LA. 206 and Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All.). Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the AO held that interest income of Rs.13,90,47,536 as income u/s. 56 of the Act. The AO also referred to similar cases in the case of Haveri Nimrithi Kendra & Davangere Nimrithi Kendra where similar grant received from Govt and interest received on such grant was offered as income withou…

M/S. SANGAM POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD., ,NOIDA vs. ITO- 6(1), LUCKNOW

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 265/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.264 & 265/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2014-15 Sangam Power Generation Company Ltd, Sector – 128, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Up-201304 Pan: Aakcs8971P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr B. P. Yadav [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Krishna Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)

…d 1995 Tax LR 911 (Orrisa) and Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maharashtra electro smelt Ltd 1995 Tax LR 1002 (Bombay) was overruled. Court also referred to a decision of this Court in Kedar Narain Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1938 6 ITR 157 (ALL) holding "anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted". Following the above principle, Court held that interest earned by Assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like Section ITAT-Lucknow Page 8 of 14 Sangam Power Generation Company Ltd Vs ITO 6(1)…

M/S. SANGAM POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ITO- 6(1), LUCKNOW

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 264/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.264 & 265/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2014-15 Sangam Power Generation Company Ltd, Sector – 128, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Up-201304 Pan: Aakcs8971P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr B. P. Yadav [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Krishna Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)

…d 1995 Tax LR 911 (Orrisa) and Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maharashtra electro smelt Ltd 1995 Tax LR 1002 (Bombay) was overruled. Court also referred to a decision of this Court in Kedar Narain Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1938 6 ITR 157 (ALL) holding "anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted". Following the above principle, Court held that interest earned by Assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like Section ITAT-Lucknow Page 8 of 14 Sangam Power Generation Company Ltd Vs ITO 6(1)…

JAMESON ABRAHAM,KOLLAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…344 (SC)). Jameson Abraham v. Pr. CIT The Revenue, sure, can disregard the same where the same are found as false or incorrect. Income, it needs to be appreciated, is a term of wide amplitude, defined inclusively in s. 2(24) (Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All)); it’s accrual or receipt largely a matter of fact, would have to be satisfied if an income, not admitted or disclosed, is to be brought to tax by the Revenue. The burden to prove that a receipt is in the nature of income is on the Revenue. We may here hasten to add that where there is a specific position of law, as s. 41(1), it’s parameters…

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…mount as he liked. The application of the income for payment of interest could not affect its taxability in any way.—CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (1987) 61 CTR (Mad) 117 : (1985) 156 1TR 542 (Mad) : TC 41 R. 544 and Kedar Narain Sinoh vs. CIT (1938) 6 ITR 157 (All) : TC 32R.258 approved; CIT vs. NaQdriuna Steels Ltd. (1988) 71 CTR (AP) 118 : (1988) 171 ITR 663 (AP) : TC 41R.551, CIT vs. Electrochem Orissa Ltd. (1995) 123 CTR (On) 162 : (1995) 211 ITR 552 (Ori) and CIT vs. Maharashtra Electrosmelt ,v Ltg\. (1995) 124 CTR (Bom) 117 : (1995) 214 ITR 489 (Bom) : TC 41R.557 / disapproved; CIT vs. Shaw Wallac…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND POWER SANKONAHATTI ATHNI PRIVATE LIMIED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 34/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…ompany will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilizing the borrowed funds as its income. It was rightly pointed out in the case of Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All) that "anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted ". The interest earned by the assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not det…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KSK WIND ENERGY HALAGALI BENCHI PRIVATE LIMIED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 33/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Energy Ward-2(1), Halagali Benchi Private Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1965 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Sankonahatti Athni Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1900 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao Revenue By: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. Ar Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ksk Wind Power Ward-2(1), Aminabhavi Chikodi Hyderabad. Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaeck 1888 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Gowtham, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…ompany will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilizing the borrowed funds as its income. It was rightly pointed out in the case of Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All) that "anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted ". The interest earned by the assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not det…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. L & T METRO RAIL (HYDERABAD) LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1412/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs. L & T Metro Rail Circle-16(1), (Hyderabad) Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcl 8521 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashik Shah Revenue By: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/01/2022 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Sri B. Sunil Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56

…ompany will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilizing the borrowed funds as its income. It was rightly pointed out in the case of Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All) that "anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted ". The interest earned by the assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not detr…

M/S. GANPATI GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 302/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

…ompany will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilizing the borrowed funds as its income. It was rightly pointed out in the case of Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All) that "anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted ". The interest earned by the assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not detr…

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

ITA 54/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.Namita S. Pandey, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Parv Agrawal, CA
Section 143(3)

…ompany will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilizing the borrowed funds as its income. It was rightly pointed out in the case of Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All.) that 'anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted'. The interest earned by the assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable. The fact that the source of income was borrowed money does not detr…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJEET SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Cable Corporation of The Deputy India Ltd., Commissioner of Income 4th Floor, Laxmi Bldg., Tax, 6, Shoorji Vallabhdas Vs. Circle 2(1), Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Ballard Estate, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACC2936J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Perey Pareliwala, A.R. Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. Shri Nishit Khadri, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Awangshi Gimson, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.02.2019 Date…

INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE PROCESSING PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3497/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 3497/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. India Metal One Steel Plate The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Processing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tax, Prestige Palladium Bayan, Corporate Circle – 2(2), 6Th Floor, Door No. 129 To 140 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacci 5959F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ'/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

…company will have to pay interest on the money borrowed by it. But that cannot be a ground for exemption of interest earned by the company by utilizing the borrowed funds as its income. It was rightly pointed out in the case of KedarNarain Singh v. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All) that “anything which can properly be described as income is taxable under the Act unless expressly exempted”. The interest earned by the assessee is clearly its income and unless it can be shown that any provision like section 10 has exempted it from tax, it will be taxable.” On question of adjustment of interest payable the Hon’ble Supreme…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2041/Del/2013 (Assessment Year2006-07) Givo Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), C/o Vinod Kumar New Delhi Bindal & Co. C.A., Shiv Sushil Bhawan, D-219, Vivek Vihar I, New Delhi – 110 095 GIR / PAN :AAACG3928L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA Respondent by :Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the asses…

ACIT 11(3), MUMBAI vs. SRI. PRAMOD H. LELE, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee appeals are dismissed

ITA 5581/MUM/2004[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5581/Mum/2004 & 3691/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2004-05) Asst. Cit, Room No. 447, Pramod H. Lele, बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 5/7, Chandrashekhar Co-Op Soc., Mumbi-400 020 Swami Nityanand Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapl 6012 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ganesh Bare ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.07.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Two Appeals By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xi, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Arising Out Of Separate Orders, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2002-03 & 2004-05. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Taxability Of The Gain On The Transfer Of Sweat Equity Shares During The Relevant Previous Years Allotted To The Assessee. While The Revenue Seeks To Bring The Entire Gain To Tax As Short-Term Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh BareFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 56

…nce to the decisions in the case of Emil Webber vs. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 483 (SC) (affirming the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court reported at [1978] 114 ITR 515 (Bom)) and of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Kedar Narain Singh vs. CIT [1938] 6 ITR 157 (All). The entire order merits careful reading; it concluding as under: ‘20. For the reasons set out above, we vacate the impugned relief granted by the CIT(A) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent that the gains on exercise of stock options, on the admitted facts of the case, is taxable as short term capital gains. The reaso…

Kedar Narain Singh v. CIT (6 ITR 157) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax