What is P.H. Divecha v. CIT authority for?

Distinguishing between capital and income receipts, and between trading and non-trading profits, involves questions of law to be drawn from the facts. A voluntary payment, for which the recipient has no legal right to compensation, may not be taxable.

How many judgments cite P.H. Divecha v. CIT?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite P.H. Divecha v. CIT (48 ITR 222), spanning 1992 to 2025.

P.H. Divecha v. CIT (48 ITR 222)

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

…held that for determining the\nquestion of capital and incomes, 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 H…

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

…held that for determining the\nquestion of capital and incomes, 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…

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…the recipient may have no any repeat payment has no legal right to any compensation at all. The proposition is supported by the following decisions: CIT v E. D. Sheppard (48 ITR 237) (SC); CIT v Vazir Sultan & Sons (36 ITR 175, 185) (SC); P. H. Divecha v CIT (48 ITR 222) (SC); W.A. Guff v CIT (31 ITR 826) (Bom.); Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. v CIT (36 ITR 544) (Ker.), reversed on another point CIT v Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. (44 ITR 714) (SC); CIT v Shaw Wallace (6 ITC 178) (PC); CIT v P. K. Das (34 ITR 729) (Cal.); CIT v Pran Jiban Jaitha (52 ITR 108) (Cal.); and Chibbett v Joseph (9 TC 48). Taxability of inc…

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…the recipient may have no any repeat payment has no legal right to any compensation at all. The proposition is supported by the following decisions: CIT v E. D. Sheppard (48 ITR 237) (SC); CIT v Vazir Sultan & Sons (36 ITR 175, 185) (SC); P. H. Divecha v CIT (48 ITR 222) (SC); W.A. Guff v CIT (31 ITR 826) (Bom.); Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. v CIT (36 ITR 544) (Ker.), reversed on another point CIT v Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. (44 ITR 714) (SC); CIT v Shaw Wallace (6 ITC 178) (PC); CIT v P. K. Das (34 ITR 729) (Cal.); CIT v Pran Jiban Jaitha (52 ITR 108) (Cal.); and Chibbett v Joseph (9 TC 48). Taxability of inc…

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

…he 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 goodwill, which had been transferred by the assess…

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2884/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

For Respondent: Shri V. Sridharan, Senior

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 9(1)(v)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…t of a trade, is a fixed asset only by analogy and, as it were, by metaphor. The nature of receipts from it depends essentially, I think, upon the transaction out of which they arise and the context in which they are received." (c ) P.H. Divecha v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC): This decision of the Supreme Court was cited for the proposition laid down as follows: ". . . It may also be stated as a general rule that the fact that the amount involved was large or that it was periodic in character have no decisive bearing upon the matter. A payment may even be described as 'pay', 'remuneration', etc., but that does not…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / 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 Assessee by : Shri Nikhilesh Begani, AR…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAMLAPPA D BATTULL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / 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 Assessee by : Shri Nikhilesh Begani, AR…

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

…ts are initially not taxable, they cannot be taxed despite the magnitude of the accumulation and despite its appropriation by the assessee to his own credit subsequently. 33.18. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.H. Divecha v. CIT reported in 48 ITR 222(SC) has observed as under:- “If the payment is by another person it must be found out why that payment has been made. It is not the motive of the person who pays that is relevant. More relevance attaches to the nature of the receipt in the hands of the person who receives it though in trying to find out the quality of the receipt one may have to…

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

…ts are initially not taxable, they cannot be taxed despite the magnitude of the accumulation and despite its appropriation by the assessee to his own credit subsequently. 33.18. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.H. Divecha v. CIT reported in 48 ITR 222(SC) has observed as under:- “If the payment is by another person it must be found out why that payment has been made. It is not the motive of the person who pays that is relevant. More relevance attaches to the nature of the receipt in the hands of the person who receives it though in trying to find out the quality of the receipt one may have to…

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

…ts are initially not taxable, they cannot be taxed despite the magnitude of the accumulation and despite its appropriation by the assessee to his own credit subsequently. 33.18. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.H. Divecha v. CIT reported in 48 ITR 222(SC) has observed as under:- “If the payment is by another person it must be found out why that payment has been made. It is not the motive of the person who pays that is relevant. More relevance attaches to the nature of the receipt in the hands of the person who receives it though in trying to find out the quality of the receipt one may have to…

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

…ts are initially not taxable, they cannot be taxed despite the magnitude of the accumulation and despite its appropriation by the assessee to his own credit subsequently. 33.18. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.H. Divecha v. CIT reported in 48 ITR 222(SC) has observed as under:- “If the payment is by another person it must be found out why that payment has been made. It is not the motive of the person who pays that is relevant. More relevance attaches to the nature of the receipt in the hands of the person who receives it though in trying to find out the quality of the receipt one may have to…

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

…ts are initially not taxable, they cannot be taxed despite the magnitude of the accumulation and despite its appropriation by the assessee to his own credit subsequently. 33.18. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.H. Divecha v. CIT reported in 48 ITR 222(SC) has observed as under:- “If the payment is by another person it must be found out why that payment has been made. It is not the motive of the person who pays that is relevant. More relevance attaches to the nature of the receipt in the hands of the person who receives it though in trying to find out the quality of the receipt one may have to…

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)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4024/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4027/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) DCIT-CC-7(1) M/s Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd. बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Kalpatru Court 653, Aaykar Bhawan M.K.Road Dr. Chotiram Gidwani Marg Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Chembur, Mumbai – 400 074 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./…

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

…f Supreme Court made in the case of CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. in 57 ITR 35 differentiating the income and capital. (k) In paragraph 57, the Hon‟ble ITAT, while considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P.H. Dwivecha vs. CIT in 48 ITR 222, observed that the amount involved is large or that is periodic in nature, has no decision bearing on the matter, whether it is capital or income. It depends upon the quality of the receipts in the hands of payee. (l) In paragraph 59, the Hon‟ble ITAT observed that the joint venture agreement was made not to carry any business transaction between…

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)

…they may depend to a very great extent on the particular facts of each 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 concern…

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-16, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

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

Section 263

…ade or circulating capital or rendering services in the course of trading results in a trading receipt, sale of assets uses as fixed capital enable him to carry on his business results in capital receipt.” 57. Further, in the case of P.H. Divecha Vs. CIT in 48 ITR 222, while considering the nature of receipts, whether it is income or capital, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to constitute income, profit or gains, there must be a source from which the particular receipt has arisen and a connection must exist between the quality and the receipt of the source. It is not the motive of the person who paid that is…

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-16, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1763/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

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

Section 263

…ade or circulating capital or rendering services in the course of trading results in a trading receipt, sale of assets uses as fixed capital enable him to carry on his business results in capital receipt.” 57. Further, in the case of P.H. Divecha Vs. CIT in 48 ITR 222, while considering the nature of receipts, whether it is income or capital, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to constitute income, profit or gains, there must be a source from which the particular receipt has arisen and a connection must exist between the quality and the receipt of the source. It is not the motive of the person who paid that is…

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

…ing the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Oberoi Hotesl (P) Ltd. (1994) 122 CTR (Cal) 347 : (1994) 209 ITR 732 (Cal) : TC13PS.62. 20. In CIT vs. T.I. & M. Sales Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 116 (Mad) in which principle laid down in P.H. Divecha vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 222 (SC) and CIT vs. Seshasavee Bros. (P) Ltd. (1999) 151 CTR (Mad) 598 : (1999) 239 ITR 471 (Mad) was applied, it was held that distributorship agreement on principal to principal basis was not an agency agreement and did not fall within the ambit of s. 28(ii)(c) of the Act and that merely because compensation was quantified on different counts, it c…

P.H. Divecha v. CIT

What is P.H. Divecha v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing P.H. Divecha v. CIT

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

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

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

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

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S MANEESH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

M/S ACE DESIGNERS LIMITED vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF

BUTTERFLY MARKETING PVT. LTD. (BY SUCCESSOR V.M. CHETTIAR & SONS INDIA P. LTD.),KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-16, NEW DELHI

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-16, NEW DELHI

DY.C.I.T. 1(2), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S RISHABH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, RAIPUR