Morley v. Tattersall

7 ITR 316Reported decision1939#5653 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)non-compete feesection 28(i)section 28(iv)section 43(1)commercial rightsfull value of considerationright to receivelack of enquirysection 48section 40(a)(i)section 45

Judgments citing Morley v. Tattersall

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA XIX, KOLKATA vs. M/S SANDERSON AND MORGANS

ITA/155/2011HC Calcutta07 Feb 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

…principal, namely the client, has a lien on client money and over goods bailed to him for his costs. This appears from Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. . . .” “13. Mr. Pal argued that we should not be guided by Tattersall’s case, (1939) 22 Tax Cas 517 ITR 316 (C.A.) because in that case there was no money initially paid, as was done in the instant case. He submitted that what was done in that case was to put a horse belonging to a client to auction. The proceeds of the sale was money belonging to the auctioneer's client, as much as the animal itself had belonged to the client. The auctioneer might have…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. COOPER STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE INDIA P LTD., CHENGALPUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 794/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.794/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Cooper Standard Automotive Income Tax, India P. Ltd., Plot No. 3-A, Ford Corporate Circle 1(2), Supplier Park, Kilkaranai Village, Chennai 600 034. Melrosapuram Post Via Singaperumal Koil, Chengalpet 603 204. [Pan:Aabcc3665P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 05.01.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is As To Whether The Waiver Of Loan Amount Taken For Business Purposes Is Assessable As Business Income Under Section 28(Iv) R.W.S. 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Or Not.

For Appellant: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…ess of the assessee and the point to be decided was that even though the deposits were of capital nature at the point of time of receipt by the assessee could its character change by influx of time. The case of Morley (Inspector of Taxes) v. Tattersall (1939) 7 ITR 316 was referred to wherein the principle laid down by Lord Greene that the taxability of receipts was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was received and that merely because the recipient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own did not alter the character. The court examined several cases including Punjab Steel Scr…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL II, KOLKATA vs. HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA LIMITED

ITAT/155/2011HC Calcutta06 Jun 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 7Th February, 2024 Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Asit Kumar De, Adv. ...For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri Vipul Kundalia, Learned Senior Standing Counsel Along With Sri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Learned Junior Standing Counsel For The Appellant/Department & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Smt. Swapna Das & Sri Asit Kumar De, Learned Advocates For The Respondent/Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 260A

…principal, namely the client, has a lien on client money and over goods bailed to him for his costs. This appears from Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. . . .” “13. Mr. Pal argued that we should not be guided by Tattersall’s case, (1939) 22 Tax Cas 517 ITR 316 (C.A.) because in that case there was no money initially paid, as was done in the instant case. He submitted that what was done in that case was to put a horse belonging to a client to auction. The proceeds of the sale was money belonging to the auctioneer's client, as much as the animal itself had belonged to the client. The auctioneer might have…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. YUVRAJ INDUSTRIES LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2751/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT-
Section 41Section 41(1)

…to the assessee. Therefore, lie deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that the amount received in course of trade was of capital nature, the Tribunal, thereafter, straightway applied the principle of Morley v. Tattersall [1939J 7 ITR 316 (CA) and held since it was of a capital nature at the time of the receipt, it could not become assessee's income later on. The Tribunal also rejected reference application under section 256(2) on the ground that no question of law arose. The High Court held that the question sought to be agitated was completely concluded by the decision of that Co…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…nt having a character of income and had to be added as income. Therefore, the AO held that the amount received was revenue in nature. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court first considered the legal principles arising from the case of Morley v. Tattersall, (1939) 7 ITR 316, has observed as under :- “……in the case of Morley (Inspector of Taxes) vs Tattersall [1939] 7 ITR 316 (CA), it was laid down by Lord Greene that the taxability of a receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was received and that merely because the recipient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own did not…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…nt having a character of income and had to be added as income. Therefore, the AO held that the amount received was revenue in nature. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court first considered the legal principles arising from the case of Morley v. Tattersall, (1939) 7 ITR 316, has observed as under :- “……in the case of Morley (Inspector of Taxes) vs Tattersall [1939] 7 ITR 316 (CA), it was laid down by Lord Greene that the taxability of a receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was received and that merely because the recipient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own did not…

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…nt having a character of income and had to be added as income. Therefore, the AO held that the amount received was revenue in nature. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court first considered the legal principles arising from the case of Morley v. Tattersall, (1939) 7 ITR 316, has observed as under :- “……in the case of Morley (Inspector of Taxes) vs Tattersall [1939] 7 ITR 316 (CA), it was laid down by Lord Greene that the taxability of a receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was received and that merely because the recipient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own did not…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…nt having a character of income and had to be added as income. Therefore, the AO held that the amount received was revenue in nature. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court first considered the legal principles arising from the case of Morley v. Tattersall, (1939) 7 ITR 316, has observed as under :- “……in the case of Morley (Inspector of Taxes) vs Tattersall [1939] 7 ITR 316 (CA), it was laid down by Lord Greene that the taxability of a receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was received and that merely because the recipient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own did not…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…nt having a character of income and had to be added as income. Therefore, the AO held that the amount received was revenue in nature. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court first considered the legal principles arising from the case of Morley v. Tattersall, (1939) 7 ITR 316, has observed as under :- “……in the case of Morley (Inspector of Taxes) vs Tattersall [1939] 7 ITR 316 (CA), it was laid down by Lord Greene that the taxability of a receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was received and that merely because the recipient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own did not…

MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4474/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Maharashtra Industrial Deputy Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Tax (Exemption)-2(1), बिधम/ Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 093 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 60Section 61Section 62

…f the State Government in a fiduciary capacity under a trust, thus the corpus and interest on it was held on behalf of the State Government. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on certain case laws viz. (i) Morley Vs. Tatter Stall (1939) 7 ITR 316 (CA); (ii) Brown Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1965) 57 ITR 729 (HL); (iii) Sandersons and Morgans Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 433 (Cal); (iv) CIT Vs. Tanubhai D. Desai (1972) 84 ITR 713 (Bom); and (v) Gujarat Municipal Finance Board Vs. DCIT (1996) 221 ITR 317 (Guj). In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R that…

ITO 1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SAURABH INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 460/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Lalkaka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITO 1(3)(2) Vs. M/s. Sourabh Industries Ltd. 5th Floor, R. No. 541 Empire House, Gr. Floor, A.K. Naik Aayakar Bhaven, Marg, Fort Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400001 PAN No. AAFCS9949G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DR Assessee by: Shri K.K. Lalkaka, AR Date of Hearing : 16/02/2017 Date of pronouncement: 12/05/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant assessment year is…

ITO, WD-7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPNAY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 797/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.797/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Ito Ward-7(3), Kolkata, Vs. M/S Energy Development P-7, Chowringhee Square, Company Limited, R.No.17, 5Th Floor, Kolkata- Edcl House, 1A, Elgin 700 069 Road, Kolkata-700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 6969 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : None "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Ms.Vandana Bhandari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: ` The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.145/Cit(A)-Viii/Kol/13-14, Dated 27.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income On Dated 14.10.2010, For A.Y.2010-11. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & The Ao Framed Assessment U/S.143(3) Treating The Forfeited Amount Of Rs.12,40,00,000/- As Revenue Income In Respect Of 75000 Warrants. The Assesse Under Consideration Had Forfeited 75000 Warrant Amounting To Rs. 12,40,00,000/- Allotted To Promoters & Other Investors

For Appellant: Ms.Vandana BhandariFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 28

…held that cessation of liability arising out of the early redemption of debentures does not give rise to any taxable income since the debentures were issued for the purposes of purchase of fixed assets. (iii).Morley (Inspector of Taxes) vs Tattersall [1939] 7 ITR 316 (CA) .:'If a particular amount is not received as trading' receipt at the first instance, it would not be subsequently recorded as trading receipt due to change of circumstances" (iv).Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. [2000] 109 TAXMAN 250 (SC) In this case the Apex court has reiterated the clear distinction between Income and Capital Receipt as und…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…Page 1 of 144 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2677/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/s. DLF Limited vs. Addl.CIT, DLF Centre, 9th Floor, Sansad Range 10, New Delhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN AAACD3494N) Appellant Respondent ITA No.3061/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) Addl.CIT, vs. M/s. DLF Limited Range 10, DLF Centre, 9th Floor, New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN AACD3494N Appellant Respondent Assesse by Shri R.S. Singhvi, Advocate Page 2 of 144 Revenue b…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…Page 1 of 144 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2677/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/s. DLF Limited vs. Addl.CIT, DLF Centre, 9th Floor, Sansad Range 10, New Delhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN AAACD3494N) Appellant Respondent ITA No.3061/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) Addl.CIT, vs. M/s. DLF Limited Range 10, DLF Centre, 9th Floor, New Delhi Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN AACD3494N Appellant Respondent Assesse by Shri R.S. Singhvi, Advocate Page 2 of 144 Revenue b…

CIT vs. ICC INDIA P. LTD

The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms in terms

ITA/396/2012HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 28Section 41(1)

…pra) a Bench of this Court had considered the previous rulings in Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (supra) as well as decision in CIT v. Karan Chand Thapar, (1966) 222 ITR 112. In both the decisions the Court of Appeal decision in Morley v. Tattersall, (1939) 7 ITR 316 (CA) was analysed. This Court in Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. after examining the previous ruling of the Supreme Court observed as follows: - “In the context of waiver of loan amount, what follows from the reading of the aforesaid judgment is that the answer would depend upon the purpose for which the said loan was taken. If the loan was taken for…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

ITA/774/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…of time of receipt by the assessee, could their character change by efflux of time?‖ The Supreme Court thereafter referred to several authorities including the celebrated decision of the Court of Appeal in England in the case of Morley v Tattersall (1939) 7 ITR 316, and the test propounded by Lord Greene in that case that the taxability of the receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was received and not at any subsequent point of time and not because the recipient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own, and also to some decisions of courts in India in which th…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

ITA-774/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011
Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…of time of receipt by the assessee, could their character change by efflux of time?‖ The Supreme Court thereafter referred to several authorities including the celebrated decision of the Court of Appeal in England in the case of Morley v Tattersall (1939) 7 ITR 316, and the test propounded by Lord Greene in that case that the taxability of the receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was received and not at any subsequent point of time and not because the recipient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own, and also to some decisions of courts in India in which th…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

ITA - 774 / 2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011
Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…of time of receipt by the assessee, could their character change by efflux of time?‖ The Supreme Court thereafter referred to several authorities including the celebrated decision of the Court of Appeal in England in the case of Morley v Tattersall (1939) 7 ITR 316, and the test propounded by Lord Greene in that case that the taxability of the receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment it was received and not at any subsequent point of time and not because the recipient treated it subsequently in his income account as his own, and also to some decisions of courts in India in which th…

LOGITRONICS PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

ITA/1623/2010HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 2(24)Section 41(1)

…ereafter the money of the assessee. They were the assessee‟s trading receipts”. In the process, the Court exhaustively discussed and examined the principles laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Morley (Inspector of Taxes) Vs. Tattersall [1939] 7 ITR 316 (CA) that the taxability of a receipt was fixed with reference to its character at the moment, it was received and that merely because the recipient treated it ITA No. 1623 of 2010 & ITA No.503 of 2010 Page 10 of 24 subsequently in his income account as his own did not alter that character. The Court noted that Tattersall…

C.I.T vs. JACKSON ENGINEERS LTD

Appeal stands disposed of in the

ITA/251/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 80I

…mained with the assessee for a long period unclaimed by the trade parties. By lapse of time-barred and the amount attained a totally different quality. It became a definite trade surplus. In Jay‟s case it was pointed out that in Tattersall‟s case (1939) 7 ITR 316 (CA) no trading asset was created. Mere change of method of book-keeping had taken place. But, where a new asset came into being automatically by operation of law, common sense demanded that the amount should be entered in the profit and loss account for the year and be treated as taxable income. In other words, the principle appears to be th…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2