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 877Supreme Court of India1992#2044 most cited

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT · 195 ITR 877 · capital receipts · income definition · section 2(24) · not taxable as income · revenue receipts · capital vs income · section 45 · section 115JB

Also reported as

62 Taxmann 456

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 2(24)Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 14A Section 115JB Section 142(1)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 58 section 10(20)advancement of general public utility section 10(2)section 14a(2)purposive interpretation section 12aa(3)section 60 section 13(8)section 2(24)section 80ib

Judgments citing Padmaraje R. Kadambande v. CIT

M/S. Love in Action Society, Trivandrum vs. The ITO (Exemption), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhansu Shekhar Jha, DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…reatment for the following: (a) Voluntary Contribution (b) Corpus Donations (c) Project Grants/restricted contributions (a) Voluntary contribution has not been defined under the Act, however, Supreme Court in the case of Padamaraje R Kadambande Vs CIT [1992] 195 ITR 877 held that 10 M/s.Love in Action Society. compassionate payment received by the assessee cannot be treated as income. It was observed in a different context that when the amount received was under compassion and discretion of the giver then it cannot be treated as income. Thus voluntary contributions in reality is not income but deemed to be so, o…

Telenor (India) Communications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7541/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. &nFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rans, CIT(DR)

…assessee had not entered into any venture in the nature of trade, so as to hold that income accrued to it by way of business income. In support he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrimant Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT reported in 195 ITR 877. He had further alternatively contended that even if it is held that the appellant had acquired a capital asset, there can be no computation of capital gain, since the set off i.e. concession provided by the DoT was under a policy decision of Government of India had not been extinguished. The ld. Senior Counsel also provided the details of the tr…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 168/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, ARFor Respondent: Shr P.K.Srihari, CIT

Section 115J

…being capital in nature under the provisions of MAT. Under the Act, income is chargeable to tax when it comes within the definition of income as specified u/s 2(24) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmaraje R Kadambande Vs CIT reported in 195 ITR 877 (SC) has held that capital receipts are not income within the meaning of section 2(24) of the Act and hence not chargeable to tax. When a receipt cannot be brought to tax under the computation of income under the normal provisions as well as under the deeming provisions of the Act, then such receipt is out of the purview of the provisions of sect…

Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

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

ITA 1533/KOL/2015[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Harakamal Chakravorty, ARFor Respondent: Shr P.K.Srihari, CIT

Section 115J

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kem Liquors & Beverages P. Ltd, Thane

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 686/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G Manjunathaassessment Year : 2010-11 Ito 9(2)(2), M/S. Kem Liquors & Beverages P Ltd., Mumbai A/47, Road No.11, Wagle Indl. Estate, Vs. Thane (W), Thane 400 604

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 4Section 5Section 56(1)Section 61

…ppellant to be taxed u/s. 56 of the I.T.Act. Assessing Officer has not made out this case on any legal ground, hence, such presumption cannot be sustained. Appellant further gets support from various decisions of the case of – a) Padmaraje R Kadambande vs CIT 195 ITR 877 (1992)(SC) b) CIT vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (2008) (SC) c) CIT vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. 337 ITR 21 (Delhi) (2010) (SC) d) Niyati B Yodh vs. ACIT, 4 SOT 941 (Mumbai) (2004)” 5. The learned DR submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessi…

DCIT, CC-Xvi, Kolkata vs. South Asian Petrochem Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)

…being capital in nature under the provisions of MAT. Under the Act, income is chargeable to tax when it comes within the definition of income as specified u/s 2(24) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmaraje R Kadambande Vs CIT reported in 195 ITR 877 (SC) has held that capital receipts are not income within the meaning of section 2(24) of the Act and hence not chargeable to tax. When a receipt cannot be brought to tax under the computation of income under the normal provisions as well as under the deeming provisions of the Act, then such receipt is out of the purview of the provisions of sect…

Sicpa India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Sicpa India Ltd.), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle -8, Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose while appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 885/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 885/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sicpa India Private Limited -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-8, (Formerly Known As Kolkata Sicpa India Ltd. ), Kolkata [Pan : Aadcs 6121 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 933/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2007-08 D.C.I.T., Circle-8, Sicpa India Private Limited Kolkata (Formerly Known As Sicpa India Ltd. ), Kolkata [Pan : Aadcs 6121 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Assessee : Shri Prashant Jaiswal, Ar For The Department : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Jaiswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR

Section 10(35)Section 14ASection 43B

…with is the issue whether the said capital receipt shall be excluded in the computation of book profit u/s 11SJB.· In this regard, the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande -vs.- CII (1992) 195 ITR 877 (SC) wherein it has been held that capital receipt are not income within the meaning of section 2(24) of the Act and hence not at all chargeable under the Income Tax Act. A receipt which is neither 'Profit' nor 'Income' and which does not have any element there-of embedded there in, cannot be part of 'Profit' as per Profit & Loss account prepared…

Kishore D Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3796/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shri Kishre D. P Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 501, Ashar Villa, Plot Ward No. 21(2)(3) Mumbai Vs. No. 242, Near Taiml Sangham Hall Sion (E), Mumbai-400022 Pan No.Aslps3244H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri. Rs Bindra, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. B.S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 12-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM Shri Kishre D. P Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 501, Ashar Villa, Plot Ward No. 21(2)(3) Mumbai Vs. No. 242, Near TAiml Sangham Hall Sion (E), Mumbai-400022 PAN No.ASLPS3244H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. Shri. RS Bindra, AR Revenue by .. Shri. B.S. Bist, DR Date of hearing .. 12-01-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 17-02-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-10, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT (A)-10/ACIT-22(1)/IT-112/12-13 dated 11-12-2013.…

Rajnikant D Shroff, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed

ITA 4424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Ms. Kirti R. KamdarFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

Section 24

…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 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 settled legal position in our understanding, t…

Jitendra Kumar Soneja, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 291/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45

…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 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 settled legal position in our understanding, t…

ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Lakshmi Mani Ayer, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the A

ITA 6710/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Morya PratapFor Respondent: Shri. Ravikant S.Pathak

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 55

…r of the assessee and against the revenue in assessee’s own case ITA No.2436/Mum/2009 for the A.Y. 2005-06, DCIT vs. Laxmi Mani Aiyar, by the Mumbai, Tribunal following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmaraje R Kadhambande vs. CIT (1992) 195 ITR 877 and 4 Assessment Year: 2011-12 the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CIT vs. Jaya Bhaskaran (supra). In the aforesaid case the only issue before the Tribunal was whether the amount received by the assessee after the death of her husband from the firm M/s K.S.Aiyer & Co., in which he was a partner, is a capital or revenue receipt? The Tribunal decided…

M/S Smt Mahindro Devi, Karnal vs. AO, Karnal

In the result, all above three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 2(24)Section 57Section 80C

…its taxability. Therefore, we do not agree with the views of lower authorities that only lump sum payment received are not chargeable to tax. The appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Padmraje R. Kadambande Vs. CIT 195 ITR 877 (SC) where it has been held that it is the quality of the payment that is decisive of the character of payment and not the method of the payment or its measure, it fall within capital or revenue. 9. Further Coordinate bench of ITAT in DCIT Vs. Laxmi M Aiyar (supra) has held that the periodicity of the payment does not make the payment chargeable…

M/S Smt Mahindro Devi, Karnal vs. AO, Karnal

In the result, all above three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 487/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 2(24)Section 57Section 80C

M/S Smt Mahindro Devi, Karnal vs. AO, Karnal

In the result, all above three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 486/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 2(24)Section 57Section 80C

D.C.I.T.CC - Xxviii, Kol., Kolkata vs. M/S Binani Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 144/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/ Shri K.V. Beswal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld.DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…is concerned, that now stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and we are in respectful agreement with the same. 13.2. Our above view also finds support from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs 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 section 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 & Los…

Mahesh J Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1560/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Mahesh J. Jhaveri, Ito 21(1)(3) 401/02 Purna Urvi Ns Rd 2, बनाम/ Swastik Society, Vile Parle(W) Mumbai Vs. Mumbai -400056 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaepj8678F

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45

…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 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 settled legal position in our understanding, th…