Kishan Mahadev Jaghav v. V.D. Vakhaskar (249 ITR 266)

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

…expression "income" does not lose its natural connotation. 10 f. While considering the issue of taxation of compensation received on surrender of tenancy right, their Lordships of the Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Weaving Mills Company Ltd vs. CIT: 249 ITR 266 elucidated the principle relating to taxation of income in the following words: "...... It is well-settled that all receipts are not taxable under the Income-tax Act. Section 2(24) defines "income". It is no doubt an inclusive definition. However, a capital receipt 'is not income under section 2(24) unless it is chargeable to tax as capital gains…

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…ved was excluded from the total income as the entire amount represents a non- taxable ‘capital receipts’. The ld. Counsel has also referred the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court 116 ITR 758 page no. 771 and also referred decision of Bombay High Court vide 249 ITR 266. He also referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 198 Taxman 78 (SC). He also submitted that there is no transfer of goodwill made in the case of the assessee, therefore, same is not to be treated as goodwill. On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 36. Hear…

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…ved was excluded from the total income as the entire amount represents a non- taxable ‘capital receipts’. The ld. Counsel has also referred the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court 116 ITR 758 page no. 771 and also referred decision of Bombay High Court vide 249 ITR 266. He also referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 198 Taxman 78 (SC). He also submitted that there is no transfer of goodwill made in the case of the assessee, therefore, same is not to be treated as goodwill. On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 36. Hear…

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)

…t taxable under the Act. For this, the appellant has relied upon the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Shaw Wallace and Company, Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 227 ITR 17, Cadell Weaving Mills Company Ltd. vs. CIT 249 ITR 266. The appellant has further submitted the compensation is not received on transfer of capital asset within the meaning of Section 45 rws 2(14) of the IT Act. In this regard, the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. 122 ITR 594. It is also submitted that for profit or gain from th…

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…Council in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengal vs Shaw Wallace and Company reported in 2 Company Cases 276 vide order dated 14.3.1932 b) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 249 ITR 266 (Bom) which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs D.P.Sandu Bros (Chembur) Pvt Ltd reported in 273 ITR 1 (SC) c) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mehboob Productions Pvt Ltd vs CIT reported in 106 ITR 758 (Bom) 7 M/s. Batliboi Limited d) Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…every receipt is not income. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Shaw Wallace and Company: 2 Comp Cases 276 (SC) ii) Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) iii) Cadell Weaving Mills Company Ltd vs. CIT 249 ITR 266 (Bom) [affirmed by SC in 273 ITR 1] The Ld. AR further submitted that the nature of the foreign exchange gain shall depend upon the nature of the transaction – if the transaction of remittance is for revenue account purpose, then, exchange gain/ loss shall be revenue income/ gain, whereas if the transaction of remittance is for a capital account…

Gyanendra Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/138/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…wered in favour of the Assessees. (iii) The word „any receipt‟ is of wide aptitude. Again relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gulab Chand (supra) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kishan Mahadev Jaghav v. V.D. Vakhaskar , 249 ITR 266 (Bom) , it was held that the sum received by the Assessees was neither a business income nor a salary, nor an income ITA Nos. 136 & 138/2004 Page 8 of 23 attracting capital gains. Therefore, the AO justified in bringing the amount t…

Girish Bansal vs. UOI & Ors