Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

116 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1979#177 most cited

What is Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A gain arising from the cancellation of a forward exchange contract entered into for the acquisition of a capital asset constitutes a capital receipt. Income-tax liability for such transactions is determined by the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, independent of the accounting treatment in the books of account.

409

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd · 116 ITR 1 · capital receipt · foreign exchange gain · forward contract · capital asset · Section 43A · income tax liability · accounting treatment · capital gains

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Lake View Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3409/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lake View Developers Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai 211 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Lake View Developers Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Omega Associates, बनाम/ Mumbai 514, Dalamal Tower, 211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue By Assessee By : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi
Section 143(3)Section 22

…rent assets’. The treatment accorded in books, though un-evidenced, would not, in our view, be determinative of the matter, as is trite law (Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC); Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC), etc). On the contrary, the said treatment is contradicted by the assessee claiming depreciation on a part of the leased assets, i.e., furniture and fixture, which is leased out along with the house property. Forming part of the assets under lease, claimed as trading assets, how could, one may ask, depreciation be claimed thereon, implying the…