How many judgments cite Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

57 judgments on BharatTax cite Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (53 ITR 261), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(47), Section 45, Section 142(1), Section 143(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3).

Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

53 ITR 261Supreme Court of India1964#2006 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 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 45 Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)relinquishment of right section 55(2)section 45(1)section 55 section 80h transfer of capital asset section 80hh block of assets section 80hhc section 2(47)enduring benefit

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-3(1), Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S M/S Risabh Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Raipur (Cg)

ITA 29/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

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…

DCIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ascent Hydro Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6732/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 80I

…to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court followed the decision in the case of CIT vs My Home Power Ltd. 365 ITR 82 (A.P.) and distinguished the decision in Oberai Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 103 taxman 236 (SC)(Para-11) and Kettlewll Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 and further affirmed the decision of the Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) in the case of Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd., therefore, considering the above judicial pronouncements, it is now settled proposition in law that in principle the receipts on sale of carbon credits should not brought into the „Profit & Loss Account‟ and it relates to the “…

Pr. CIT 9, Mumbai vs. Ascent Hydro Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6427/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 80I

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside on

ITAT/274/2017HC Calcutta17 Nov 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 14ASection 260A

…trading profit or no trading profit, are questions which, though they may depend no doubt to a very great extent on the particular facts of each case, do involve a conclusion of law to be drawn from those facts’.” 12. In Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 261; AIR 1965 SC 65 dealing with the question whether compensation received by an agent for premature determination of the contract of agency is a capital or a revenue receipt, echoing the views expressed in Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148(SC) 6 and analysing numerous judgments on the point, this court laid down the following broad princi…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 4024/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha – Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(a)

…ncomes, trading profit or non trading profit are questions do involve a question of law to be drawn from the facts. [CIT v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji [1959] 35 ITR 148 (SC), P.H. Divecha v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC), Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 283 (SC) and CIT v. BEST and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 11 (SC) The aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in 'Karamchand Thapper And Bros. (P.) Ltd. and Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd.(supra). 6. The Bombay High Court dealt with the…

Uniliver India Export Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5413/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2021AY 1996-97

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5413/Mum/2016 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 1996-97) Unilever India Export Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly- Indexport Limited) Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(2), फनाभ/ Unilever House, B.D. Savant Mumbai -400 020 Marg, Chakala, Andheri (East) Vs. Mumbai 400 099 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci0991D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-2, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-2/It/598/2009-10 Dated 02.05.2016. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short Acit/ Ito/ Unilever India Export Limited; Ay 96-97 Ao), Osd 1(1), Mumbai For The A.Y. 1996-97 Vide Order Dated Nil Under Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, Dr

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री ए रयफ़ौय यहभान, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 5413/Mum/2016 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 1996-97) Unilever India Export Limited The Dy. Commissioner of (Formerly- Indexport Limited) Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(2), फनाभ/ Unilever House, B.D. Savant Mumbai -400 020 Marg, Chakala, Andheri (East) Vs. Mumbai 400 099 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./PAN No. AAACI0991D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Ap…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143Section 4

…mbande vs. CIT, 57 ITR 36 (SC) CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. 6.1 The nature and character of receipts is determined with reference to the purpose for which the payments are made. He relied up on 48 ITR 222 (SC) P.H. Dwivecha vs. CIT Page 84 of 155 53 ITR 261 (SC) Kettlewell Bullen& Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 275 CTR 532 (Ker) CIT vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. 351 ITR 110 (Del) Khanna & Anandhanam vs. CIT 404 ITR 318 (Del) Pr. CIT vs. Aeren R. Infrastructure Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC) Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. , 400 ITR 279 (SC) CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers, 317 ITR 353 (Del) Dharam Pal Prem Chand, 88 ITD 273 (M…

M/S Ace Designers Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner of

In the result, the order of the Tribunal dated

ITA/184/2013HC Karnataka09 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 28

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.184 OF 2013 BETWEEN: M/S. ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRINIVAS G. SHIRGURKR PLOT NO.7 & 8, II PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU), JSS TOWERS 100 FEET RING ROAD BANASHANKARI III STAGE BANGALRE-560085. ... RES…

Butterfly Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (by Successor V.M. Chettiar & Sons India P. Ltd.), Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3079/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar

Section 143(3)

…case, do involve a conclusion of law to be drawn from those facts (see Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji (1955) 35 ITR 148 P. H. Divecha v. Commissioner of Income-tax 48 ITR 222, Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 53 ITR 261, Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 53 ITR 283 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Best & Co. (P.) Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 11 (SC) 10. The question whether a particular income arising from the termination of one of the agencies of a multi-agency concerned is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt is undoubtedly a difficult…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

…itled to raise before appellate authorities additional grounds in terms of additional claims not made in return filed by it. ix. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT[1964] 53 ITR 261 (SC), the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that “we have no doubt that what the assessee was paid was to compensate him for loss of a capital asset. It matters little whether the assessee did continue after the determination of its agency with the Fort William Co. Ltd. to conduct the remaining agencies. The transaction was not in the nature of a trading tr…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5884/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…whether eventually received part of the amount under the decree in view of the memorandum of settlement is also liable to be brought under tax. 9. Learned AR placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs D…

Mr. Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

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

…eated the same as “Capital receipt” not chargeable to tax and accordingly has shown the same under the head ‘Reserve and Surplus’. In support of this claim, the assessee placed reliance on following citations :- 1. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC) 2. Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 903 (SC) 3. Karam Chand Thapar & Soons Bros. P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 80 ITR 167 (SC ) 4. CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 422 (SC) 5. Khanna & Annadhanam Vs. CIT (2013) 351 ITR 110 (Delhi.HC) 6. ACIT Vs. Triupati Udyog Ltd. (2013) 36 CCH 157 (ITAT.Del) 7. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd.…

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Ashwini Manmohan Kakkar, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 5315/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of Mr. Ashwini Manmohan Income-Tax 1(3), Kakkar, Centre-1, 28Th Floor, 11-B, Jolly Maker World Trade Centre, Vs. Apartment, Cuffe Parade, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aacpk9698Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. & Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2018 O R D E R Per D.T. Garasia: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 08.03.2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Short Facts Of The Case Are As Under: During The Previous Year Relating To A.Y. 2007-08 Assessee Had Received An Amount Of 10,74,260/- Euro From Thomas Cook, Uk.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 2(24)Section 28Section 8O

…incomes and not capital receipts. By termination of the contracts, the Appellant has veritably lost his source of consultancy income. The Appellant has correctly relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co Ltd. vs. CIT 53 ITR 261 {SC} and Oberoi Hotels Ltd. vs. CIT 236 ITR 903 {SC}. These decisions have held when the compensation paid is relatable to the loss of source of income, the compensation is a capital receipt and not taxable as income. This legal position has also been concurred by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order. His only disagreement was that the co…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 154

…tion cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.22.50 crores as against Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s decision in the case of CIT vs. Best & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. 60 ITR 11 and Kettewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 53 ITR 261 and CIT vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 468? 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Shri Rajeev Kumar representing the Department vehemently opposing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in coming to the c…

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…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Tara Sinha

The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs

ITA/154/2005HC Delhi11 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 28

…he Revenue’s appeal challenges concurrent findings of the CIT (A) and ITAT, we do not find any cause to interfere. 29. In Khanna and Annadhanam (supra), this Court followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kettlewell Bullen and Company Ltd. v. CIT, [1964] 53 ITR 261 SC, and held that any payment made which represents compensation for the loss of the source of income would be capital in nature and that it would not be taxable. This Court, while commenting upon the amounts paid to a Chartered Accountant’s firm, for terminating an arrangement with Delloitte Haskins and Sells (DHS) held as under: “…It is somewhat…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 419/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT

Section 11Section 14A

…he receipt as capital in nature, claimed deduction of the amount. It may be pertinent to note that the said decision was affirmed by the Apex court in [2010] 233 CTR 0209/[2010] 325 ITR 0422. The assessee company also drew support from the decisions in [1964] 53 ITR 261(SC) and the Bombay High Court decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 130 (Bom.). 15 - - ITA 383, 384, 418 419/Mds/2017 9.1 It would appear from a reading of the assessment order that the AO proposed to tax ₹ 1,99,35,914/- under the mistaken impression that the assessee offered lesser amount. The confusion in reconciliation could…