S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

83 ITR 700Supreme Court of India1972#820 most cited

What is S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta authority for?

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

126

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

S.G. Mercantile Corporation v. CIT · Section 14 · income from other sources · residuary head of income · Section 45 · capital gains · taxing income

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 194-ISection 2(13)Section 24Section 37(1)Section 119

Issues it is cited on

section 57profits and gains of business or professionsection 32section 56income from other sourcessection 36(1)section 14aprevious yearsection 143(2)transfercompanybusiness

Judgments citing S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta

Mahindra Telecommunications Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2832/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2832/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mahindra Telecommunications Income Tax Officer, 2(2)(3), बनाम/ Investment Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3774 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. P. Mahajani ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 18.1.2012, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 30.12.2010. 2. The Background Facts The Facts Of The Case Are Simple & Undisputed. The Assessee-Company, Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Pursuant To A Shareholders’ Agreement Dated March

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)

…efined both in the accountancy as well as by statute. There is no law that interest could be assessed only as ‘income from other sources’, partake as it does its’ character from the underlying transaction from which it arises (CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury [1993] 203 ITR 881 (SC)). The case law cited stands also considered, only to find the same to be in agreement with the view expressed herein, confirming the stand of the Revenue, being essentially a question of fact, to be determined on an appreciation of the facts of the case, with the law being well settled. Finally, we observe the income arising has not been wor…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Facor Power Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1011/2015HC Delhi07 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

For Appellant: Mr Zoheb Hossain for Mr Rohit MadanFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 260A

…d “income from other sources” only if it does not fall under any other head of income as provided in Section 14 of the Act. The head “income from other sources” is a residuary head of income. See S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd vs CIT, Calcutta; (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) and CIT vs Govinda Choudhury & Sons.; (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC). 5.2 It is clear upon a perusal of the facts as found by the authorities below that the funds in the form of share capital were infused for a specific purpose of acquiring land and the development of infrastructure. Therefore, the interest earned on funds primarily broug…

M/S Famous Commercial Complex, Udupi vs. ITO, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1232/BANG/2015[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2015AY 1987-88

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1232 to 1242/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 1987-88 to 1997-98 M/s. Famous Commercial Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Complex, Ward 1, Near City Bus Stand, Udupi. Udupi. PAN: AACFF 0317M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Prathibha, Advocate Respondent by : Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 23.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2015 O R D E R These eleven (11) appeals are filed by the assessee against the common order dated 11.03.2015 of the CIT(Appeals), Mangaluru pe…

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

…f the computation provided u/s. 48, it could still impose tax under the residuary head is thus unacceptable. If the income cannot be taxed u/s. 45, it cannot be taxed at all as has been held in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. –vs.- CIT [1972] 83 ITR 700 (SC)”. 13. As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to the cases of Shri Amitabh Singh (supra) and Nawshir H. Mirza (supra) decided by the Coordinate benches of this Tribunal, we respectfully follow the decision rendered in the said cases to hold that the amount in question received…

ITO 22(3)(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Mehul Construction, Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3226/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3226/M/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri None
Section 143(3)Section 44A

…thereon was part of the business income and the assessee has rightly treated the same as income from business . The ld. Counsel strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Govinda Chaudhary and Sons reported in 203 ITR 881. The counsel also relied on the judgement of Jurisdictional High court in the case of Emkay Exports reported in 188 Taxmann 195(Bom). The ld. Counsel finally submitted that the order passed by CIT(A) after following the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Govinda Chaudhary and Sons (SUPRA) was perfect, as per law and deserved to be upheld. 6 We have…

Mahagun Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4419/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Saubhagya Aggarwal, Adv. Suman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R. Singh, CIT, DR
Section 153A

…r head of income as provided in Section 14 of the Act. The head "income from other sources" is a residuary head ITA No. 4418-19/Del/2013 Mahagun Hotels Pvt. Ltd. A Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 of income. See S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd vs CIT, Calcutta; (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) and CIT vs Govinda Choudhury & Sons.; (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC). 5.2 It is clear upon a perusal of the facts as found by the authorities below that the funds in the form of share capital were infused for a specific purpose of acquiring land and the development of infrastructure. Therefore, the interest earned on funds primarily brought for inf…

Mahagun Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4418/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Saubhagya Aggarwal, Adv. Suman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. R.R. Singh, CIT, DR
Section 153A

…r head of income as provided in Section 14 of the Act. The head "income from other sources" is a residuary head ITA No. 4418-19/Del/2013 Mahagun Hotels Pvt. Ltd. A Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 of income. See S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd vs CIT, Calcutta; (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) and CIT vs Govinda Choudhury & Sons.; (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC). 5.2 It is clear upon a perusal of the facts as found by the authorities below that the funds in the form of share capital were infused for a specific purpose of acquiring land and the development of infrastructure. Therefore, the interest earned on funds primarily brought for inf…

ITO 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hiranandani Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4613/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & B.R.Baskaran (Am) सर्वश्री जोगगन्दय ससिंह, न्मायमक सदस्म एर्िं बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सिं./I.T.A. No.4613/Mum/2013 (यनधावयण र्र्व / Assessment Year :2009-10) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 12(3)(1), M/S Hiranandani Builders, 514, Dalamal Tower, Room No.114, Vs. Nariman Point, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 3Section 80I

…lopment activity of the company it falls under first degree soured of income eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) further followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhry and sons (203 ITR 881), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the interest received on delayed payment cannot be separated from other amounts granted to the assessee under the awards and hence it cannot be treated as “income from other sources”. 9 And CO 188/M/2014 11. The first receipt disputed by the revenue relates interest received from the Income t…

M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 474/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…rtake the same character as contract receipts and therefore should be treated as a business receipt. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts: i. CIT Vs. Govind Choudhary & Sons, 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. Nirman Industries Ltc. Vs. DCIT, 283 ITR 402(Guj.) iii. Konkan Barge Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and Anr, 297 ITR 39(Bom.) iv. CIT Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymars Ltd., 306 ITR 194(Bom.) v. Phatela Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 303 ITR 411 (P&H) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We heard the riv…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 4366/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…rtake the same character as contract receipts and therefore should be treated as a business receipt. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts: i. CIT Vs. Govind Choudhary & Sons, 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. Nirman Industries Ltc. Vs. DCIT, 283 ITR 402(Guj.) iii. Konkan Barge Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and Anr, 297 ITR 39(Bom.) iv. CIT Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymars Ltd., 306 ITR 194(Bom.) v. Phatela Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 303 ITR 411 (P&H) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We heard the riv…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 2561/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…rtake the same character as contract receipts and therefore should be treated as a business receipt. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts: i. CIT Vs. Govind Choudhary & Sons, 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. Nirman Industries Ltc. Vs. DCIT, 283 ITR 402(Guj.) iii. Konkan Barge Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and Anr, 297 ITR 39(Bom.) iv. CIT Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymars Ltd., 306 ITR 194(Bom.) v. Phatela Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 303 ITR 411 (P&H) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We heard the riv…

M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3967/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…rtake the same character as contract receipts and therefore should be treated as a business receipt. In support of this proposition, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts: i. CIT Vs. Govind Choudhary & Sons, 203 ITR 881 (SC) ii. Nirman Industries Ltc. Vs. DCIT, 283 ITR 402(Guj.) iii. Konkan Barge Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO and Anr, 297 ITR 39(Bom.) iv. CIT Vs. Bhansali Engg. Polymars Ltd., 306 ITR 194(Bom.) v. Phatela Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 303 ITR 411 (P&H) 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We heard the riv…

M/S. Matrix Infrastructure, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5428/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

…he case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions (2008) 297 ITR 70 and also on the judgement of Supreme Page No.20 ITA No.5428/Del./2010 ITA No.5548/Del./2010 Court in the case of CIT vs Govinda Choudhury and Sons(SC) reported in 203 ITR 881(SC) held that the investment of amount in fixed deposit by the assessee was for the purpose of providing a bank guarantee to the contractee in order to acquire contract work and therefore, the interest received on fixed deposit was in the nature of business income. In the instant case also the assessee has made fixed deposit for the purpose of ba…

Nigara Hotels& Buildera ( P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, we set aside the

ITA/43/2014HC Delhi25 Mar 2015

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

Section 260

…ith its properties as owner, one must see not to the form which it gave to the transaction but to the substance of the matter” [emphasis supplied] 18. The above view was reiterated in S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC). 19. The crucial test is as to whether the letting out has a definite nexus with the business of the assessee. In our opinion, the approach of both the AO and the ITAT in the case at hand has been totally misdirected. Wrong classification of the licensed space in the books of account as stock-in-trade cannot change the character of…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/113/2011HC Telangana20 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

CIT vs. Petronet Lng Ltd

ITA/290/2011HC Delhi17 Feb 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…nder any other head of income as provided in Section 14 of the Act. The head "income from other sources" is a residuary head of income. See S.G. Mercantile ITA Nos.290 of 2011 & 292 of 2011 Page 6 of 6 Corporation P. Ltd. v.83 ITR 700(SC) and CIT v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons 203 ITR881(SC).” 7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no question of law arises. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (M.L. MEHTA) JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 skb…

CIT vs. Petronet Lng Ltd

ITA - 290 / 2011HC Delhi17 Feb 2011

…settled that an income received by the assessee can be taxed under the head "income from other sources" only if it does not fall under any other head of income as provided in Section 14 of th A t Th h d "i f th " i 2011:DHC:1001-DB Corporation P. Ltd. v.83 ITR 700(SC) and CIT v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons 203 ITR881(SC).” 7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no question of law arises. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (M.L. MEHTA) JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 skb 2011:DHC:1001-DB…

C.I.T vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd

Appeal stands disposed of in the

ITA/251/2008HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 80I

…of Section 80-I of the Act. Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Gujarat High Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons, Gosaninuagaon, Orissa, (1993) 203 ITR 881 in which ITA No. 251 of 2008 Page 12 of 18 case the Supreme Court had held that interest was of the same nature as other trading receipts in the following manner :- “The assessee is a contractor. His business is to enter into contracts. In the course of the execution of these contracts, he has also to face disputes…

C.I.T vs. Bharat Rasayan Ltd

ITA - 816 / 2007HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 80

…urpose of Section 80-I of the Act. Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Gujarat High Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons, Gosaninuagaon, Orissa, (1993) 203 ITR 881 in which case the Supreme Court had held that interest was of the same nature as other trading receipts in the following manner: "The assessee is a contractor. His business is to enter into contracts. In the course of the execution of these contracts. he has also to face disputes with the State Government and he has also to reckon with delays in…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi I vs. Bharat Rasayan Ltd

ITA - 796 / 2007HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 80

…urpose of Section 80-I of the Act. Answering the question in favour of the assessee, the Gujarat High Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa v. Govinda Choudhury & Sons, Gosaninuagaon, Orissa, (1993) 203 ITR 881 in which case the Supreme Court had held that interest was of the same nature as other trading receipts in the following manner:- "The assessee is a contractor. His business is to enter into contracts. In the course of the execution of these contracts, he has also to face disputes with the State Government and he has also to reckon with delays i…