Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

53 ITR 261Supreme Court of India1964#2007 most cited

What is Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A receipt for loss of capital is a capital receipt, while a receipt as profit from a trading transaction constitutes taxable income. This case provides a foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue receipts.

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. · 53 ITR 261 · capital receipt · taxable income · loss of capital · trading profit · capital vs revenue distinction · Section 45 · Section 2(47) · transfer of capital asset · classification of receipts

Sections most often in play

Section 2(47)Section 45Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)relinquishment of rightsection 55(2)section 45(1)section 55section 80htransfer of capital assetsection 80hhblock of assetssection 80hhcsection 2(47)enduring benefit

Judgments citing Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

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

…s been likened pictorially to the fruit of a tree, or the crop of a field. It is essentially the produce of something which is often loosely spoken of as 'capital" (emphasis supplied) d. The Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Limited: [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) held, "It may be broadly stated that what is received for loss of capital is a capital receipt; what is received as profit in a trading transaction is taxable income". e. The Supreme Court in the case of Emil Webber vs. CIT: 200 ITR 483, held that the definition of "income" in clause (24) of section 2 of the Act is an inclusive definition; a…

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(3)Section 250

…es, trading profit or non trading profit\nare questions do involve a question of law to be drawn from the facts.\n[CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha\nv. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT\n[1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964]\n53 TR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 TR 11\n(SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the\naforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in Karamchand\nThapper And Bros. (P) Ltd. and Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd.(supra).\n\n6. The Bombay High Court dealt with…

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…es, trading profit or non trading profit\nare questions do involve a question of law to be drawn from the facts.\n[CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha\nv. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT\n[1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT\n[1964] 53 [TR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 TR 11\n(SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the\naforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in Karamchand\nThapper And Bros. (P) Ltd. and Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd.(supra).\n6. The Bombay High Court dealt with t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. SATHYABAMA RAMACHANDRAN , ALWARTHIRUNAGAR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghava Simhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…r claimed that there was no transfer of assets and, hence, no capital gains tax could be applied under section 45. The appellant provided several legal precedents in support of their case: Sathyabama Ramachandran :- 5 -: 1. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 261 SC 2. Rajendra Babubhai Modi (1993) 200 ITR 98 (Guj HC) 3. CIT v. P.N. Panjawani (2013) 21 taxmann.com 458 (Kar HC) 4. ITO v. Paru D. Dave (2008) 110 ITD 410 (Mumbai ITAT) 5. ITO v. Fine Developers (2012) 26 taxmann.com 202 (Mumbai ITAT) 6. Anik Industries Ltd. (2020) 116 taxmann.com 385 (Mumbai ITAT) 7. Radhu Palace v. ACIT (2014) 41 taxmann.com…

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

ITA 798/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Nikhil Patakh &For Respondent: \nShri Arvind Desai
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89

…urce of Income then,\nsuch amounts are Capital Receipts: -\n20. Sir, the appellant would like to explain \"Capital Receipts\" as held by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, which are as under:-\nKettlewell Bullen & Company Ltd vs. CIT - Supreme Court-53 ITR 261 (1964)\nwherein it has been held \"whereby cancellation of an agency the trading\nstructure of the assessee is impaired, or such cancellation in loss of what\nmay be regarded as the source of assessee's income, the payment made to\ncompensate for cancellation of the agency agreement is normally a capital\nreceipt\", loss of source of Income is fun…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta27 Jun 2024

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

…tional Private Limited vs. Auroglobal Comtrade Private Limited & Others); [para 43]; III. 1959 SUPP [1] SCR 110 : AIR 1959 SC 291 : (1959) 35 ITR 148 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Vaiji & Others); [para 11]; IV. (1964) 53 ITR 261 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 205 (Kettlewell Bullen And Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta); [paras 15, 20, 21, 26 and 36]; Page 45 of 77 V. [1999] 3 SCC 127 (Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [paras 7 & 11]; VI. [1991] 2 SCC 180 (Puran Singh Sahni vs. Smt. Sundari Bhagwandas Kripalani & Ors.); [para…

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

ITA 1811/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…to such compensation is not relevant for the purposes of determining the true quality and character of the compensation. 13.2. Respectfully reliance is further placed by the ld. AR on the following decisions:- a. Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) “On an analysis of these cases which fall on two sides of the dividing line, a satisfactory measure of consistency in principle is disclosed. Where on a consideration of the circumstances, payment is made to compensate a person for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of his business, nor deprive him of what…

DCIT, CIR-8, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA vs. OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. , KOLKATA

ITA 1808/KOL/2006[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…to such compensation is not relevant for the purposes of determining the true quality and character of the compensation. 13.2. Respectfully reliance is further placed by the ld. AR on the following decisions:- a. Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) “On an analysis of these cases which fall on two sides of the dividing line, a satisfactory measure of consistency in principle is disclosed. Where on a consideration of the circumstances, payment is made to compensate a person for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of his business, nor deprive him of what…

OBEROI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 489/KOL/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri. Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…to such compensation is not relevant for the purposes of determining the true quality and character of the compensation. 13.2. Respectfully reliance is further placed by the ld. AR on the following decisions:- a. Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC) “On an analysis of these cases which fall on two sides of the dividing line, a satisfactory measure of consistency in principle is disclosed. Where on a consideration of the circumstances, payment is made to compensate a person for cancellation of a contract which does not affect the trading structure of his business, nor deprive him of what…

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R
Section 28Section 40Section 45

…iness which is a capital asset and thus chargeable as capital gains is not sustainable. 31. The Ld. CIT(A) at page 12 has thrashed the facts in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [53 ITR 261 (SC)], CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji 35 ITR 148 (SC), CIT vs. Chari and Chari Ltd. 57 ITR 400 (SC) & Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 236 ITR 903 and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Indo Foreign Traders (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 308 (Mad.) and Chemplant Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (234 ITR 23). ITA No.3706/M/20…

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R
Section 28Section 40Section 45

…iness which is a capital asset and thus chargeable as capital gains is not sustainable. 31. The Ld. CIT(A) at page 12 has thrashed the facts in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [53 ITR 261 (SC)], CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji 35 ITR 148 (SC), CIT vs. Chari and Chari Ltd. 57 ITR 400 (SC) & Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 236 ITR 903 and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Indo Foreign Traders (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 308 (Mad.) and Chemplant Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (234 ITR 23). ITA No.3706/M/20…

M/S. ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT -2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.5 and the additional ground of appeal are allowed

ITA 2907/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shrigagan Goyalआअसं.2907/मुं/2008 ("न.व.2002-03) Zensar Technologies Ltd. Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. Pan: Aaacf-0742-K ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(31), Mumbai Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate : ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr & Pratap Narayan Sharma, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/08/2023 आदेश/Order

For Respondent: S/Shri Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 10ASection 115JSection 234DSection 80HSection 94(7)

…Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have erred in treating the said compensation as “Income from other Sources”. In support of his submissions, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd, vs. CIT, 53 ITR 261 (SC) (ii) Karan Chand Thapar & Bros P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 80 ITR 167 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corp., 27 Taxman 314(SC) (iv) CIT vs. Vazir Sultan & Sons , 36 ITR 175 (SC) The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that with the execution of Compromise Agreement, the assessee surrendered the right to sue. Any compensation received…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…Calcutta firm constituted the source and once that source got terminated, the compensation received can only be capital in nature. We think that there is a good deal of force in the contention of the assessee. In Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT: (1964) 53 ITR 261 the Supreme court drew a distinction between the compensation received for injury to trading operations arising from breach of contract or from the exercise of sovereign rights and compensation received as solatium for loss of office. It was held that the compensation received for loss of an asset of enduring value would be regarded as capital The…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

ITA 4115/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…Calcutta firm constituted the source and once that source got terminated, the compensation received can only be capital in nature. We think that there is a good deal of force in the contention of the assessee. In Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT: (1964) 53 ITR 261 the Supreme court drew a distinction between the compensation received for injury to trading operations arising from breach of contract or from the exercise of sovereign rights and compensation received as solatium for loss of office. It was held that the compensation received for loss of an asset of enduring value would be regarded as capital The…

M/S KWALITY CAFE & RESTAURANT P LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/585/2006HC Punjab & Haryana18 Apr 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 260A

…spect to the amount of Rs.55 lakhs received by the assessee. While deciding this issue, the Tribunal has referred to a number of judgments i.e. CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji, (1959) 35 ITR 148 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC), Divecha (P.H.) vs. CIT, (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC) and Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1999) 236 ITR 903 (SC). As per opinion of the Tribunal, receipt of consideration for transfer of goodwill/trade marks and trade names is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the issue of value of the go…

ACIT CENT .CIR6(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. KENNETH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2396/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th 15Th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8268P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rakesh RanjanFor Respondent: K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar
Section 115JSection 143(2)

…Act. For this proposition, the appellant has relied upon the decision in the case of CIT vs. Burmah Trading Corporation 161 ITR 386 (SC) Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [(1992) 62 Taxman 456 (SC)]. Kettlewellbullen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 53 ITR 261 (SC), Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 236 ITR 904 (SC). Further, it is submitted that the compensation received from DDA is not on transfer of capital asset because the appellant is engaged in the business of real estate and if the transaction would have been materialized, the same would P a g e | 5 have been recorded as stock in trade and not th…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT vs. SWASTIK ENTERPRISES, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are allowed

ITA 173/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Swastik Enterprises, Circle-2(3), R.S. No. 130, F.P. 36, T.P.S. 37, Vs. Surat. Behind Althan Gam, Althan, Surat. Pan No. Aakfm 1069 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

…s India Discount Co. Ld. (1970) 75 ITR 0191 (SC),  CIT Vs Suresh Chand Goyal (2007) 163 Taxman 54 (MP),  Automobile Products of India Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 159 (Bom),  Gordhandas Trikambhai Patel (1979) 118 ITR 81 (Guj),  Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC),  Tribhuvandas Vallabhdas s CIT (1966) 61 ITR 518,  G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. Vs CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594,  Vasupujya Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs ITO (ITA 912 to 923/PN/2002) (Pune Trib) order dated 31/05/2006. 11. At the time of making submissions, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws;  CIT Vs India Discount C…

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. AS SUCCESSOR OF ROHM AND HAAS (INDIA) PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass Room No. 458, 4th floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej IT Park-P2, 1st floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. LBS Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. PAN No. AAACR 2855 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajan R. Vora/ Mr. Hemen Chandariya, ARs Revenue by : Dr. Y…

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

…s from entering into any competitive business, which otherwise we are authorised to, is nothing but a capital receipt in our hands and liable to be taxed. To support our view we rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kettlewell Bullen & Co, Ltd. v. CIT (53 ITR 261). The assessee in that case was carrying on the business of managing agencies of 6 companies. On termination of one of its agencies, the assessee received a compensation for loss of profits. The observations of the court are reproduced hereunder: "On an analysis of these cases which fall on two sides of the dividing line, a satisfactory measure of…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S M/S RISABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 30/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.(S)29 & 30/Rpr/2017 Co No.(S) 04 & 05/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Risabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Manas Bhawan, Near Adarsh Garage, Opp. Pujari Park, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aaccr4411P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ld have to be considered whether the agency was in the nature of capital asset in the hands of the assessee, or whether it was only part of nis stock-in-trade. 6. The aforesaid judgment was considered in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC) : TC 13R.1226 wherein the Court has held as under : "Whether a particular receipt is capital or income from business, has frequently engaged the attention of the Courts. It may be broadly stated that what is received for loss of capital is a capital receipt: what is received as profit in a trading transaction is taxable income. But the diffic…

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (53 ITR 261) — Cited in 57 Judgments | BharatTax