R 222 (SC) P.H. Dwivecha vs. CIT Page 84 of 155 53 ITR 261 (SC) Kettlewell Bullen& Co. Ltd. v. CIT

351 ITR 110High Court2013#9712 most cited

What is R 222 (SC) P.H. Dwivecha vs. CIT Page 84 of 155 53 ITR 261 (SC) Kettlewell Bullen& Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The nature and character of a receipt, whether it is of a capital or revenue nature, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly the purpose for which the payment was made.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Khanna & Annadhanam v. CIT · 351 ITR 110 · capital receipt · revenue receipt · business income · nature of receipt · termination of contract · modification of contract · section 28(ii)(e)

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 2(24)Section 2(47)

Issues it is cited on

transfersection 143personcompanyindiabusinessinterest

Judgments citing R 222 (SC) P.H. Dwivecha vs. CIT Page 84 of 155 53 ITR 261 (SC) Kettlewell Bullen& Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Milan Saini, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

…[2018] 400 ITR 108 (Bom)- SLP filed by the Revenue against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Parle Soft Drinks (Bangalore (P.) Ltd.) reported at [2018] 97 taxmann.com 136 (SC) (vi) Khanna & Annadhanam vs. CIT: [2013] 351 ITR 110 (Del) (vii) Pr. CIT vs. Aeren R. Infrastructure Ltd.: (2018) 404 ITR 318 (Del HC) (viii) CIT vs. Shard Sinha [2016] 237 Taxman 111 (Del HC) (ix) PCIT vs. Pawa Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.: [2023] 457 ITR 392 (Del HC) (x) CIT v. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd.: (2004) 267 ITR 702 (Mad) (xi) CIT v. J. L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593 (Cal) b. Sectio…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Kolkata vs. M/S. Itc Limited

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta27 Jun 2024

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

…roi hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Page 50 of 77 Commissioner of income Tax reported in [2024] 158 Taxmann. Com 284 (Cal.) (paras 7 to 12), and judgement of Delhi High Court in Khanna and annadhanam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2013] 351 ITR 110 (Delhi) (paras 2,5,6 and 7). Vii) The judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts of the present case and the correct position of law is stated as submitted and also as reflected from the judgements relied by the respondent/assessee. Discussions and Findings:- 13. Before we proceed to examin…

Dow Chemicals International Pvt Ltd. As Successor of Rohm and Haas (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7936/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dow Chemical International Private Income Tax Officer-14(1)(3), Limited As Successor Of Rohm & Hass Room No. 458, 4Th Floor, (India) Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Godrej It Park-P2, 1St Floor Block B, 02, Mumbai-400020. Lbs Road, Godrej Business District, Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan No. Aaacr 2855 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan R. Vora/For Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DR
Section 92C

…ay HC) Case law in favour of the assessee 1. N. Sandeep Reddy 95 ITD 33 (Hyderabad Tribunal) 2. Sri K.S.N. Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 105 ITD 375 (Hyderabad Tribunal) 3. Kwality Cafe & Restaurant (P.) Ltd. 105 ITD 169 (Chandigarh Tribunal) 4. Khanna & Annadhaman 351 ITR 110 (Delhi HC) 33. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansel properties and industries Ltd (supra), relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Dow Chemical International Private Limited as successor of Rohm and Hass 39 (India) Priv…

Ajay B. Ghose, Thane vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1720/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleajay B. Ghose Vs. Dcit – Cpc Flat No. 504, Angelo, Post Bag No. 1, Hiranandani Estate, Electronic City, Ghobander Road, Thane Bangaluru – 560500. Maharashtra– 400607. Pan/Gir No. : Aebpg1796A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Gunjan Kakkad. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Mehul B. Jain. DR
Section 143(1)Section 17(3)(i)

…submissions with the fallowing judicial decisions as under;- “1. CIT Vs. Ajit Kumar Bose, [1987] 165 ITR 90 2. CIT Vs. Sharda Sinha [2016] 237 Taxman 111 (Delhi) 3. Oberio Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 903 (SC) 4. Khanna & Annadhanam Vs. CIT [2003] 351 ITR 110 (Delhi) 5. Arunbhai R Naik Vs. ITO [2015] 379 ITR 511 (Guj) M/s Ajay B Ghose, Mumbai 6, Chandrakant Tolia Vs. ACIT [2009] 316 ITR 312 (Madras) 7. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 404 ITR 564 (Bombay) 8. Kvaverner John Brown Engg. Vs. ACIT [2008] 305 ITR 103 (SC) 9. Khatua Junkar Ltd Vs. KS Pathania [1992] 196 ITR 55 (Bombay)” 10. Further t…

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

…eipts 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 (Ker) CIT vs. Sapthagiri Distilleries Ltd. 351 ITR 110 (Del) Khanna & Anandhanam vs. CIT 404 ITR 318 (Del) Pr. CIT vs. Aeren R. Infrastructure Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC) Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. , 400 ITR 279 (SC) CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers, 317 ITR 353 (Del) Dharam Pal Prem Chand, 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (Spl Bench), DCIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 264 Tax 252 (Bom) Pr. CIT vs. Welspun Steels Ltd. 98 ITD…

M/S. J.C. Bhalla & Co., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1921/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. J.C. Bhalla & Co, Vs. Addl. Cit, B-17, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi Range-37, New Delhi Pan: Aaafj3258M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 28Section 40Section 54Section 54E

…apital gain the provisions of section 55 (2) (a) of the act applies and the cost of acquisition of the same is nil but the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54EC of the act. He further relied on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in 351 ITR 110 mainly. Therefore he stated that any sum received by the assessee in consequence of impairment of profit earning apparatus is in the nature of capital receipt and not taxable as the capital gain or business profit. Even otherwise, he submitted that if the client relationship and the goodwill are held to be a capital asset transfer of which is cha…

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

…Vs. CIT (1964) 53 ITR 261 (SC) 2. Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 903 (SC) 3. Karam Chand Thapar & Soons Bros. P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 80 ITR 167 (SC ) 4. CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 422 (SC) 5. Khanna & Annadhanam Vs. CIT (2013) 351 ITR 110 (Delhi.HC) 6. ACIT Vs. Triupati Udyog Ltd. (2013) 36 CCH 157 (ITAT.Del) 7. Parle Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCTI (2013) 37 CCH 099 (ITAT. Mum) 8. 3I Infotech Limited Vs. Addl. CIT ( 2013) 37 CCH 058 (ITAT Mum.) 3. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He examined the relevant portion of the…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Tara Sinha

The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs

ITA/154/2005HC Delhi11 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 28

…relies upon the following decisions: 1. CIT v. HCL lnfosystems Ltd. 385 ITR 35 (Delhi) (hereafter, ‘HCL ITA No.154/2005 Page 6 of 17 Infosystems’), 2. CIT v. Bisleri Sales Ltd. 377 ITR 144 (Bom) (hereafter, ‘Bisleri Sales’), 3. Khanna and Annadhanam v. CIT 351 ITR 110 (hereafter, ‘Khanna and Annandhanam’), 4. Guffic Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 32 ITR 602 (SC) (hereafter, ‘Guffic Chemical’), 5. Rohitasava Chand v. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del) (hereafter, ‘Rohitasava Chand’), 6. CIT v. A.S. Wardekar 283 ITR 432 (Cal) (hereafter, ‘A.S. Wardekar), 7. CIT v. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal) (hereafter, ‘Saroj Kumar Podd…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hcl Infosystems Ltd

ITA/167/2003HC Delhi21 Dec 2015
Section 260A

…epresent payments of revenue nature or trading receipts. Whether, in a particular case, payments were capital receipts or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.” 29. In Khanna and Annadhanam v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 351 ITR 110 (Del) the Assessee was a firm of Chartered Accountants (CA) from the year 1983. Under an informal agreement, it was referred work by a CA firm in Calcutta which in turn had work referred to it by a firm of CAs based outside India. The understanding between the Assessee and the Calcutta firm was limited to the work in Delhi and surrounding ar…

Ajay Kumar Doshi., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.Cir - 54, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1866/KOL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…similar amount received by the assessee as compensation for giving up his right to receive pension was held to be capital receipt not chargeable to tax by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Khanna and Annadhanam reported in 351 ITR 110. However, as rightly pointed out by the ld. D.R., the amount in question received by the assessee was never claimed by the assessee either during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer or even in the statement of facts filed before the ld. I.T.A. No. 1866/KOL./2012 Assessment year: 2003-2004 & I.T.A. No. 120/KOL./201…

M/S Vikram Traders, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 538/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.538/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Vikram Traders, Subramanyapura, Bangalore 560 061 .. Appellant Pan : Aaafv7242B V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -10(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 26.08.2015 Pronounced On : 04.09.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 41(1)

…ITA.538/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.538/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Vikram Traders, Subramanyapura, Bangalore 560 061 .. Appellant PAN : AAAFV7242B v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -10(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. C. Ramesh, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT Heard on : 26.08.2015 Pronounced on : 04.09.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : In this appeal filed by assessee, it a…

R 222 (SC) P.H. Dwivecha vs. CIT Page 84 of 155 53 ITR 261 (SC) Kettlewell Bullen& Co. Ltd. v. CIT (351 ITR 110) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax