What is Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT authority for?

The amounts received by an assessee, when regarded as capital receipts, do not fall within the definition of "income" under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act and are thus not chargeable to tax, unless specifically included by a statutory provision.

How many judgments cite Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT?

56 judgments on BharatTax cite Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT (195 ITR 877), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 2(24), Section 143(3), Section 143(2), Section 14A, Section 115JB.

Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT (195 ITR 877)

Kunnama V Balakrishna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2577/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(2) 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, Mig Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepb0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee, Despite The Fact That The Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On Previous Five (5) Occasions. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.25,21,508/- Made By Ao By Treating The Hardship Compensation Fund As “Dividend Income” Received From The Residential Society.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 147

…tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes “any capital gains chargeable under section 45”, and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot be taken as income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmraje R. Kardambande vs CIT (195 ITR 877) has observed 5 A.Y. 2011-12 Smt. Kunnama V. Balakrishna that “..,, we hold that the amounts received by the assessee during the financial years in question have to be regarded as capital receipts, and, therefore, (emphasis supplied by us), are not income within meaning of section 2(24) of the Income tax Act….” This clearly implies, as is the se…

Ramanan Sivaraman Eranath Vengali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the addition of INR 97,32,625/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and Ground No. 2 to 4 are allowed in terms of the aforesaid

ITA 807/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 56

…ny capital gains chargeable under section 45", and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot be taken as income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmaraje R. Kardambande v. CIT 8 ITA No.808/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) [1992] 195 ITR 877/ 62 Taxman 456 has observed that "..,, we hold that the amounts received by the assessee during the financial years in question have to be regarded as capital receipts, and, therefore, (emphasis supplied by us), are not income within meaning of section 2(24) of the Income-tax Actâ€¦." This clearly implies, as is the settled legal position in our…

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)

…P a g e | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The 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 Appellant by : Rakesh Ranjan Respondent by : K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar Date of Hearing 20.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.12.20…

Greenlam Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

…be included in the profit should be having the characteristic of income. There is a fundamental difference between the income and capital that the income is liable to tax, whereas capital is not liable to tax. In the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT in 195 ITR 877, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the capital receipts are not income within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act and hence are not chargeable under the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel further stated that the provision of Section 115-JB of the Act is alternative mechanism for computation of income based on book profit without Page 21…

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3744/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re taxable under the provisions of IT Act; and all other gifts received by the assessee other than those covered in other sections are not chargeable to tax being capital receipt in nature. Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande Vs. CIT, 195 ITR 877 (SC); Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in case of Mehboob Productions Private Ltd. Vs. CIT, 106 ITR 758 and in case of H.H. Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi & Anr. Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 594, held that gifts are capital receipts when consideration are not in the nature of income and, hence, same cannot be charged to tax under the provisions of Income…

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3743/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re taxable under the provisions of IT Act; and all other gifts received by the assessee other than those covered in other sections are not chargeable to tax being capital receipt in nature. Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande Vs. CIT, 195 ITR 877 (SC); Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in case of Mehboob Productions Private Ltd. Vs. CIT, 106 ITR 758 and in case of H.H. Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi & Anr. Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 594, held that gifts are capital receipts when consideration are not in the nature of income and, hence, same cannot be charged to tax under the provisions of Income…

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3742/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3742/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3743/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3744/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Jcit (Osd)-8(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Royal Western India Room No. 625, 6Th Floor, Turf Club Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Mahalaxmi Race Course, Karve Marg, Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400020. 400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr8519H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Revenue Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Respectively. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submits That The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Are Similar Especially Ground No. 1 & 2 For All The Years (Ay. 2013-14 To Ay. 2015-16) & The Additional Ground Is Only For Appeals Pertaining To Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16 Which Is Related To Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The

For Appellant: Shri Sumit LalchandaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…re taxable under the provisions of IT Act; and all other gifts received by the assessee other than those covered in other sections are not chargeable to tax being capital receipt in nature. Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande Vs. CIT, 195 ITR 877 (SC); Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in case of Mehboob Productions Private Ltd. Vs. CIT, 106 ITR 758 and in case of H.H. Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi & Anr. Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 594, held that gifts are capital receipts when consideration are not in the nature of income and, hence, same cannot be charged to tax under the provisions of Income…

ACIT, Circle - Tinsukia, Tinsukia vs. M/S. Greenply Industries Ltd., Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 359/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…be included in the profit should be having the characteristic of income. There is a fundamental difference between the income and capital that the income is liable to tax, whereas capital is not liable to tax. In the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT in 195 ITR 877, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the capital receipts are not income within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act and hence are not chargeable under the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel further stated that the provision of Section 115- JB of the Act is alternative mechanism for computation of income based on book profit without claimi…

Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 232/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…be included in the profit should be having the characteristic of income. There is a fundamental difference between the income and capital that the income is liable to tax, whereas capital is not liable to tax. In the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT in 195 ITR 877, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the capital receipts are not income within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act and hence are not chargeable under the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel further stated that the provision of Section 115- JB of the Act is alternative mechanism for computation of income based on book profit without claimi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uflex Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1855/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri S. Najmi [CIT] – D. R

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…be included in the profit should be having the characteristic of income. There is a fundamental difference between the income and capital that the income is liable to tax, whereas capital is not liable to tax. In the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT in 195 ITR 877, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the capital receipts are not income within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act and hence are not chargeable under the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel further stated that the provision of Section 115-JB of the Act is alternative mechanism for computation of income based on book profit without claimin…

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1329/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri S. Najmi [CIT] – D. R

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…be included in the profit should be having the characteristic of income. There is a fundamental difference between the income and capital that the income is liable to tax, whereas capital is not liable to tax. In the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT in 195 ITR 877, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the capital receipts are not income within the definition of Section 2(24) of the Act and hence are not chargeable under the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel further stated that the provision of Section 115-JB of the Act is alternative mechanism for computation of income based on book profit without claimin…

Asst CIT Circle-11 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Shree Pushkar Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7008/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri S.S. NagarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra

Section 115JSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.7008/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–11(2)(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Shree Pushkar Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., 301, 302, 3rd Floor Atlanta Centre, Sonawala Road ……………. Respondent Goregaon, Mumbai 400 063 PAN – AAACS9372E Revenue by : Shri Manoj Mishra Assessee by : Shri S.S. Nagar Date of Hearing – 01.07.2021 Date of Order – 09.08.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal has been f…

Nariender Kumar, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Fatehabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5206/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 2(24)Section 28Section 45Section 56(2)(viii)

…us taxability of such interest is of Capital nature and should be included to consideration received for the purpose of computation of capital gain u/s 45 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Padmaraje R. Kndambandc vs. CIT(1992) 195 ITR 877 (SC), observed that the amounts received by the assessee during the financial years in question have to be regarded as capital receipts and, therefore, are not income within meaning of sec 2(24) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made be deleted. 5. The appeal may be modified at the time of hearing.” 3. The return declaring an income of Rs. 12,…

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

…Act, but capital receipts are not liable to tax except the capital gain. He relied up on 57 ITR 36 (SC) CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd., 249 ITR 265 (Bom) Caddle Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 273 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu Brothers Pvt. Ltd. , 195 ITR 877 (SC) Padmaraje R. Kadambande 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 (K…

DCIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western Indua Turf Club Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3237/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Smt Mamta Bansal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Salis Kapoor

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…re taxable under the provisions of IT Act; and all other gifts received by the assessee other than those covered in other sections are not chargeable to tax being capital receipt in nature. Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande Vs. CIT, 195 ITR 877 (SC); Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in case of Mehboob Productions Private Ltd. Vs. CIT, 106 ITR 758 and in case of H.H.Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi & Anr. Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 594, held that gifts are capital receipts when consideration are not in the nature of income and,hence, same cannot be charged to tax under the provisions of Income Ta…

Sumesh Kumar, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Fatehabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5207/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishisumesh Kumar Vs Ito H. O. 110/6, Patel Nagar, Tohana, Ward-2 Fatehabad, Haryana. Fatehabad, Haryana Adepk4697A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(37)Section 147Section 28Section 45

…hus taxability of such interest is of Capital nature and should be included to consideration received for the purpose of computation of capital gain u/s 45 of Income Tax Act. 1961. Honble Supreme Court has, in the ease of Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT(1992) 195 ITR 877 (SC), observed that the amounts received by the assessee during the financial years in question have to be regarded as capital receipts and, therefore, are not income within meaning of sec 2(24) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made be deleted. 6. The appeal may be modified at the time of hearing.” 3 3. The return declaring in income of Rs.6…

M/S. Purity Flex Pack Ltd., Panchmahal vs. The DCIT, Godhra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1493/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1493/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 M/S.Purity Flex Pack Ltd. D.C.I.T, At Vanseti, Po Tajpura, Vs. Civil Lines, Tal. Halol, Near Collector Office, Dist. Panchmahal. Godhra.

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri L.P. Jain, D.R

Section 1Section 115Section 115JSection 234B

…receipts from profit & loss account. The AO has included it for the purpose of section 115JB. The Tribunal observed as under:— "13.2 Our above view also finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 877 (SC), wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that Capital Receipts are not income within the definition of Sec 2(24) of the Act and hence are not at all chargeable under the I.T. Act. A receipt which is neither 'Profit' nor 'Income' and which does not have any element thereof embedded therein, cannot be part of 'profit' as per Profit & Loss a…

Cable Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7369/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla & Nishit KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson

Section 143(1)

…rein, it has been held that the word income is inclusive and also referred to various sub clauses to section 2(24) which according to AO widens the import of word “Income”. The AO relied on the decision of Supreme court in the case of CIT Vs Kadambande (1992) 195 ITR 877(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the word income does not include only the specific items as enumerated in the various sub-clauses but also all such receipts s which can be described as income in its nature and general meaning. The idea behind providing inclusive definition in section 2(24) is not to limit its meaning but to wide i…

The DCIT, Circle -4, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Gandhinagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1903/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)

…ITR 590 holding that voluntary payments can be regarded as Trading receipts in the hand of the recipients and therefore, not in the nature of income. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Padmaraja R. Kadmabendre-vs-CIT reported in 195 ITR 877 was also relied upon wherein factually in an identical case the amount received by appellant therein during the financial year in question was a capital receipt and therefore was not income within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Act. It was further pointed out by the assessee that the transaction between the assessee and the bank ITA Nos.154…

Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1547/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT-D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)

…ITR 590 holding that voluntary payments can be regarded as Trading receipts in the hand of the recipients and therefore, not in the nature of income. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Padmaraja R. Kadmabendre-vs-CIT reported in 195 ITR 877 was also relied upon wherein factually in an identical case the amount received by appellant therein during the financial year in question was a capital receipt and therefore was not income within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Act. It was further pointed out by the assessee that the transaction between the assessee and the bank ITA Nos.154…

Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT

What is Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT

Kunnama V Balakrishna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(2), Mumbai

Ramanan Sivaraman Eranath Vengali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ACIT Cent .Cir6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

Greenlam Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

JCIT (OSD)-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., Mumbai

ACIT, Circle - Tinsukia, Tinsukia vs. M/S. Greenply Industries Ltd., Tinsukia

Greenply Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uflex Ltd., New Delhi

Uflex Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Asst CIT Circle-11 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Shree Pushkar Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Mumbai

Nariender Kumar, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Fatehabad

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

DCIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Western Indua Turf Club Ltd, Mumbai

Sumesh Kumar, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Fatehabad

M/S. Purity Flex Pack Ltd., Panchmahal vs. The DCIT, Godhra

Cable Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

The DCIT, Circle -4, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Gandhinagar

Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad