Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT

22 ITR 484Supreme Court of India1952#15330 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 1992 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 115JB Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act Section 263 Section 28 of the Income Tax Act Section 32

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, vs. Room No. 612, 6th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, PAN : AAACL1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30-09-2025 O R…

M/S Chatta Sugar Co. Ltd, Mathura vs. A.C.I..T Circle-3, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/AGR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…Court agreed with the Tribunal and held that the amount in question was received as a trading receipt and must be held to be income arising from business. The HC referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 484 (SC) wherein the assessee company had received a certain amount from the insurance company as a result of fire which was paid on account of loss of profits. The Supreme Court held that it was taxable income. The High Court held as under: "The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that case is clearly applicable to the case before us. In the…

V. K. Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6929/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 6929/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Nitin FuriaFor Respondent: Shri Vijayn Kumar G Subramaniyan

Section 28Section 80Section 80I

…fund of excise duty was held to be profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking within the meaning of an expression under section 80-IB 7.In fact, the Supreme Court, way back in 1952 in the judgment reported as Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT[1952] 22 ITR 484 held that where the assessee had taken policy known as "consequential loss policy" against loss of profit and its mills were completely destroyed by fire the amount received under the policy was held to be inseparably connected with the conduct of the business and, hence, was held to be a:Revenue receipt.'Para 18 is relevant and is re-produced her…

V.C. Nannapaneni vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITTA/159/2005HC Telangana05 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr. K. Vasant KumarFor Respondent: Ms. K. Mamata

Section 10(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ead with reference to the particular facts of that case. The Supreme Court also quoted the judgment in Van Den Berghs Ltd. (9 supra), and framed the following questions for determining whether a 12 [1952] 22 ITR 484 CVNR, J & TA, J ITTAs 159 & 160/2005 18 particular payment received by the assessee was income or has to be regarded as a capital receipt: (i) “whether the agreements in question were entered into by the assessee in the course of carrying on its business of distribution of firms, and (ii) whether the termination of the agreements in q…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sportking India Limited

ITA/1232/2008HC Delhi19 Aug 2009

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 80Section 80I

…ITA-1232/2008 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No. 1232/2008 Reserved on : July 15, 2009 Date of decision : August 19, 2009 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III ...Appellant. Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Mr. Mohan Prasad Gupta, Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocates VERSUS SPORTKING INDIA LIMITED ....Respondent Through: Mr. Kaanan Kapoor, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local paper…

Shrimand Padmaraja R. Kadambanda, Dhulia vs. The Commnr. of Income Tax, Pune

C.A. No.-002201-002203 - 1979Supreme Court22 Apr 1992

For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

Section 15Section 15(1)Section 15(1)(d)Section 2(24)Section 4

…TR 527 at 537 and P.H. Divacha v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I, 48 ITR 222 at 231-32, relied on. Raja Rameshwara Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax Hyderabad, 49 ITR SC 144 and Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd v. Com- missioner of Income Tax, 22 ITR 484 at 489, distinguished. H.H. Maharani Shri Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi and Anr. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II, 49 ITR 594, approved. E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 26 ITR 27 at 49 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kamal Behari Lal Singha, 82 ITR 460, Chandroji Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax…