Ltd Vs CIT 120 ITR 549 (SC). (ii) Member for Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam v. Sindhurani Chaudhurani & Other

32 ITR 169Supreme Court of India1957#3102 most cited

What is Ltd Vs CIT 120 ITR 549 (SC). (ii) Member for Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam v. Sindhurani Chaudhurani & Other authority for?

A lump sum payment made by a prospective tenant to a landlord for the settlement of agricultural land and the parting of certain rights, paid before the landlord-tenant relationship is established, is a capital payment and not rent.

38

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

Member for Board of Agricultural Income Tax v Sindhurani Chaudhurani · salami · premium · capital payment · agricultural land settlement · landlord tenant relationship · not rent · enduring benefit

Issues it is cited on

section 35absection 35abbtest of enduring benefitsection 35aresulting companypptdemergerjdaenduring benefitput to usesection 35amalgamation

Judgments citing Ltd Vs CIT 120 ITR 549 (SC). (ii) Member for Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam v. Sindhurani Chaudhurani & Other

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 348/IND/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

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

…of Hon'ble Supreme Court which are as under:- (i) Ukhara Estate Zamindaries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT 120 1TR 549 (SC) -: 119 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (ii) Member for the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam Vs. Sindhurani Chaudhurani & Others 32 ITR 169. It is observed that the second in this case is whether the receipt under consideration is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. In order to decide and examine this issue, it will be appropriate to go through the memorandum & article of the association. A careful perusal of the same makes it crystal clear that the assessee's main object is to deve…

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

…of Hon'ble Supreme Court which are as under:- (i) Ukhara Estate Zamindaries P. Ltd. Vs. CIT 120 1TR 549 (SC) -: 119 :- MPAKVN AND SEZ (Indore ) & SEZ Ltd.,Indore (ii) Member for the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam Vs. Sindhurani Chaudhurani & Others 32 ITR 169. It is observed that the second in this case is whether the receipt under consideration is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. In order to decide and examine this issue, it will be appropriate to go through the memorandum & article of the association. A careful perusal of the same makes it crystal clear that the assessee's main object is to deve…

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)

…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 vs. Sindhurani Chaudhranj & Ors. 32 ITR 169 (SC) wherein it was held that salami as a lumpsum non recurring payment made by a prospective tenant to the landlord which is not in the nature of rent within the definition of "agricultural income" given in the Income Tax Act. It was held that such 10 ITA 686 & 687/M/12 CO 08 & 09/M/13 ITA 688 to 691/M/12 CO 12 to 15/M/13 payment has all the char…

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)

…nted 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 vs. Sindhurani Chaudhranj & Ors. M/s Enam Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.3639/Mum/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 32 ITR 169 (SC) wherein it was held that salami as a lumpsum non recurring payment made by a prospective tenant to the landlord which is not in the nature of rent within the definition of "agricultural income" given in the Income Tax Act. It was held that such 10 ITA 686 & 687/M/12 CO 08 & 09/M/13 ITA 688 to 691/M/12 CO 12 to 15/M/13 payment has all the char…

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

…s a capital asset, and the money paid to purchase it may properly be held to be a payment on capital account. But the royalties were on a different footing.” 5.31 In the Member for the Board of Agricultural Income Tax Assam V/s Sindhurani Chaudhrani and ors, 32 ITR 169, the Hon’ble Supreme Characterized a lease premium (salami) as a lumpsum non-recurring payment. It has been held : “ Where salami is in the form of a lumpsum-non- recurring payment made by a prospective tenant to the landlord as a consideration for the settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights of the land in the land in favou…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA/1328/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…fettered from outsiders. It >vas held that the expenditure was not apart ofthe \^'orking oroperational expenses but for acquiring a capital asset. Similarly, in .Member of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam, vs, Sindlmrani Chaudiirani and Ors. (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC), salEirni or lump sum payment for non recurring nature made by the prospective tenant to the landlord as consideration for settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights paid anterior to landlord and tenant relationshi]!, .it was ITA 1336/2010 &. coiiii. cases. IVme !<) ol"4'') Ol lielcl was not in the nature of rent, and t…

CIT vs. Bharti Hexacom Limited

ITA/996/2011HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…fettered from outsiders. It >vas held that the expenditure was not apart ofthe \^'orking oroperational expenses but for acquiring a capital asset. Similarly, in .Member of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam, vs, Sindlmrani Chaudiirani and Ors. (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC), salEirni or lump sum payment for non recurring nature made by the prospective tenant to the landlord as consideration for settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights paid anterior to landlord and tenant relationshi]!, .it was ITA 1336/2010 &. coiiii. cases. IVme !<) ol"4'') Ol lielcl was not in the nature of rent, and t…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Telenet Ltd

ITA/1333/2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…fettered from outsiders. It >vas held that the expenditure was not apart ofthe \^'orking oroperational expenses but for acquiring a capital asset. Similarly, in .Member of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam, vs, Sindlmrani Chaudiirani and Ors. (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC), salEirni or lump sum payment for non recurring nature made by the prospective tenant to the landlord as consideration for settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights paid anterior to landlord and tenant relationshi]!, .it was ITA 1336/2010 &. coiiii. cases. IVme !<) ol"4'') Ol lielcl was not in the nature of rent, and t…

CIT vs. Bhartihexacom Ltd

ITA/114/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…fettered from outsiders. It >vas held that the expenditure was not apart ofthe \^'orking oroperational expenses but for acquiring a capital asset. Similarly, in .Member of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam, vs, Sindlmrani Chaudiirani and Ors. (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC), salEirni or lump sum payment for non recurring nature made by the prospective tenant to the landlord as consideration for settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights paid anterior to landlord and tenant relationshi]!, .it was ITA 1336/2010 &. coiiii. cases. IVme !<) ol"4'') Ol lielcl was not in the nature of rent, and t…

CIT vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd

ITA/177/2012HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…fettered from outsiders. It >vas held that the expenditure was not apart ofthe \^'orking oroperational expenses but for acquiring a capital asset. Similarly, in .Member of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam, vs, Sindlmrani Chaudiirani and Ors. (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC), salEirni or lump sum payment for non recurring nature made by the prospective tenant to the landlord as consideration for settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights paid anterior to landlord and tenant relationshi]!, .it was ITA 1336/2010 &. coiiii. cases. IVme !<) ol"4'') Ol lielcl was not in the nature of rent, and t…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1328 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…fettered from outsiders. It >vas held that the expenditure was not apart ofthe \^'orking oroperational expenses but for acquiring a capital asset. Similarly, in .Member of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam, vs, Sindlmrani Chaudiirani and Ors. (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC), salEirni or lump sum payment for non recurring nature made by the prospective tenant to the landlord as consideration for settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights paid anterior to landlord and tenant relationshi]!, .it was ITA 1336/2010 &. coiiii. cases. IVme !<) ol"4'') Ol 2013:DHC:7816-DB lielcl was not in the natu…

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

ITA - 1679 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…fettered from outsiders. It >vas held that the expenditure was not apart ofthe \^'orking oroperational expenses but for acquiring a capital asset. Similarly, in .Member of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam, vs, Sindlmrani Chaudiirani and Ors. (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC), salEirni or lump sum payment for non recurring nature made by the prospective tenant to the landlord as consideration for settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights paid anterior to landlord and tenant relationshi]!, .it was ITA 1336/2010 &. coiiii. cases. IVme !<) ol"4'') Ol 2013:DHC:7816-DB lielcl was not in the natu…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd

ITA - 1336 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…red from outsiders. It was held that the expenditure was not a part of the working or operational expenses but for acquiring a capital asset. Similarly, in Member of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam vs. Sindhurani Chaudurani and Ors. (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC), salami or lump sum payment for non- recurring nature made by the prospective tenant to the landlord as consideration for settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights paid anterior to landlord and tenant relationship, it was 2013:DHC:6537-DB ITA 1336/2010 & conn. cases.…

CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd

ITA - 1680 / 2010HC Delhi19 Dec 2013

…fettered from outsiders. It >vas held that the expenditure was not apart ofthe \^'orking oroperational expenses but for acquiring a capital asset. Similarly, in .Member of the Board of Agricultural Income Tax, Assam, vs, Sindlmrani Chaudiirani and Ors. (1957) 32 ITR 169 (SC), salEirni or lump sum payment for non recurring nature made by the prospective tenant to the landlord as consideration for settlement of agricultural land and parting with certain rights paid anterior to landlord and tenant relationshi]!, .it was ITA 1336/2010 &. coiiii. cases. IVme !<) ol"4'') Ol 2013:DHC:7816-DB lielcl was not in the natu…

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd vs. Deputy CIT

The appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs

ITA - 205 / 2010HC Delhi12 Jul 2012
Section 143Section 269U

…al payment and was not revenue. This would be in accord with the principles laid down by this 2012:DHC:4244-DB ITA 205/10, 163, 1215 & 1216/2011 Page 16 Court in Member for the Board of Agricultural Income tax v Sindhurani Chaudhurani and Ors. [1957] 32 ITR 169 (SC) which was a case of settlement of agricultural land but in which the principles governing the payment of premium or salami have been fully discussed. 7. For the reasons given above we hold that the question which was referred to the High Court ought to have been answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is accor…

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd vs. Deputy CIT

The appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs

ITA/205/2010HC Delhi12 Jul 2012
Section 143Section 269U

…al payment and was not revenue. This would be in accord with the principles laid down by this 2012:DHC:4244-DB ITA 205/10, 163, 1215 & 1216/2011 Page 16 Court in Member for the Board of Agricultural Income tax v Sindhurani Chaudhurani and Ors. [1957] 32 ITR 169 (SC) which was a case of settlement of agricultural land but in which the principles governing the payment of premium or salami have been fully discussed. 7. For the reasons given above we hold that the question which was referred to the High Court ought to have been answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is accor…

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…

CIT vs. Narain Jewels International Ltd

The appeals are dismissed with no

ITA/1058/2007HC Delhi20 Feb 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 LPA No. 1058/2007 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr.H.S. Phoolka, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal & Mr. Alok Singh, Advocates versus VARDHMAN PROPERTIES 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 I This appeal is dismissed in terms of the common judgment of 2nd July 2008 passed in LPA No. 319 of2007 titled "…