Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT

325 ITR 422Supreme Court of India2010#1576 most cited

What is Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Forfeited advance money received for the transfer of a capital asset is not taxable as revenue receipt. Such forfeiture pertains to a capital receipt directly related to the potential sale of a capital asset.

72

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT · CIT v Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. · forfeiture of advance money · capital asset · revenue receipt · income from other sources · section 56 · capital gains tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(1)Section 106Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 2(24)

Issues it is cited on

liable to taxsection 56salaryscrutiny assessmentincome from other sourcestransfercompanyindiabusinesspersonsection 143section 14

Judgments citing Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Income Tax Officer-3(2), Lucknow vs. M/S Dev Bhoomi Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

…vs. Om Oils & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. (1995) 152 ITR 552 (Del), it was held that the premium on issue of shares is to be regarded as money paid on capital account and not as revenue receipt. It has been held in Travancore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CTT (2000) 243 ITR 158 (SC) that the amount forfeited by the assessee was in terms of the agreement. Such a clause has been construed as providing for compensation for breach of contract under s. 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. If the agreed sums of money under the agreements had been received by the assessee, they would have been credited in its account as a capi…

Sri. Koramangala Muniswamy Lakshmaiah Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 6/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)

…s Limited, copy of the remand report, the rejoinder filed by the assessee, the last lease agreement executed on 21.07.2014, etc. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 325 ITR 422 5 Sri Koramangala Muniswamy Lakshmaiah Reddy. for the proposition that damages received which are directly and intimately linked with the capital asset would take the character of a capital receipt. 8. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 9. We have heard the rival subm…

Sri. Ravi Shankar Shetty, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai , Jm Ita No.28 /Bang/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #289, 1St Floor, 15Th Main, Rmv Income-Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Extension, Bengaluru Bengaluru-560 080. [Pan:Asups 9568B]

Section 234ASection 56(2)(ix)

…ction 56(2)(ix) by Finance Act 2014 which is reproduced as follows: “Section 56 Finance Act, 2014 6.10 Taxabitity of advance for transfer of a capital asset where advance is forfeited. (sections 5I and.-56) In Travancore Rubber & Tea co. Ltd.. Vs. CIT [2000J 243 ITR 158/109 Taxman 250 ) it was held that forfeiture of advance money received for transfer of capital asset cannot be treated as revenue receipt chargeable to tax. In order to overcome this ruling by the supreme court, section 56 relating to income from other sources has been amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 by inserting a new clause (ix) in sub…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 113/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 2Section 250

…he compensation received for technical loss for was on capital laimed that the compensation received for technical loss for was on capital laimed that the compensation received for technical loss for was on capital account:-  CIT vs. Suarashtra Cement [2012] 325 ITR 422 (SC) CIT vs. Suarashtra Cement [2012] 325 ITR 422 (SC) CIT vs. Suarashtra Cement [2012] 325 ITR 422 (SC)  Xpro India Ltd. [ITA No. 214/Kol/2011, order dt. 23/03/2016] pro India Ltd. [ITA No. 214/Kol/2011, order dt. 23/03/2016] pro India Ltd. [ITA No. 214/Kol/2011, order dt. 23/03/2016]  Deputy Commissioner of Income Deputy Commissioner of Incom…

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai International Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1251/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1251/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Chennai International Income Tax, Vs. Terminal Pvt. Ltd., No. 1-A, Corporate Circle 1(2), New Avadi Road, High Court Colony, Chennai 600 034. Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. [Pan:Aaccc9433A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 18.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Insurance Claim Receipts By Following The Decision In The Case Of Cit V. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 325 Itr 422 (Sc).

For Appellant: Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 3

…nt to the assessment year 2012-13. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards insurance claim receipts by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 325 ITR 422 (SC). 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 4 days, for which, the Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. 2 I.T.A. No. 1251/Chny/18 Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the Revenue was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay of 4 days in filing of t…

Sri Vls It Services, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1087/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132Section 144Section 153C

…ead of income hence requested to assess the income instead of confirming the entire addition. In this connection, he relied on the following case law: a. Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2000) [243 ITR 158 (SC)]; b. CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., [325 ITR 422] (SC); c. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., (2016) [52 ITR(T) 235 (Mumbai Trib.); d. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Kolkata in ITA No.797/Kol/2014, dt. 03-03-2017, in the case of ITO Vs. M/s.Energy Development Company Limited; :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 1083, 1084, 1085, 108…

Sri Vls It Services, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1086/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132Section 144Section 153C

…ead of income hence requested to assess the income instead of confirming the entire addition. In this connection, he relied on the following case law: a. Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2000) [243 ITR 158 (SC)]; b. CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., [325 ITR 422] (SC); c. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., (2016) [52 ITR(T) 235 (Mumbai Trib.); d. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Kolkata in ITA No.797/Kol/2014, dt. 03-03-2017, in the case of ITO Vs. M/s.Energy Development Company Limited; :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 1083, 1084, 1085, 108…

Sri Vls It Services, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1085/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132Section 144Section 153C

…ead of income hence requested to assess the income instead of confirming the entire addition. In this connection, he relied on the following case law: a. Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2000) [243 ITR 158 (SC)]; b. CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., [325 ITR 422] (SC); c. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., (2016) [52 ITR(T) 235 (Mumbai Trib.); d. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Kolkata in ITA No.797/Kol/2014, dt. 03-03-2017, in the case of ITO Vs. M/s.Energy Development Company Limited; :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 1083, 1084, 1085, 108…

Sri Vls It Services, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1084/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132Section 144Section 153C

…ead of income hence requested to assess the income instead of confirming the entire addition. In this connection, he relied on the following case law: a. Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2000) [243 ITR 158 (SC)]; b. CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., [325 ITR 422] (SC); c. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., (2016) [52 ITR(T) 235 (Mumbai Trib.); d. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Kolkata in ITA No.797/Kol/2014, dt. 03-03-2017, in the case of ITO Vs. M/s.Energy Development Company Limited; :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 1083, 1084, 1085, 108…

Sri Vls It Services, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1083/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 132Section 144Section 153C

…ead of income hence requested to assess the income instead of confirming the entire addition. In this connection, he relied on the following case law: a. Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2000) [243 ITR 158 (SC)]; b. CIT Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., [325 ITR 422] (SC); c. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ACIT Vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., (2016) [52 ITR(T) 235 (Mumbai Trib.); d. Co-ordinate Bench decision of the ITAT, Kolkata in ITA No.797/Kol/2014, dt. 03-03-2017, in the case of ITO Vs. M/s.Energy Development Company Limited; :- 6 -: ITA Nos. 1083, 1084, 1085, 108…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Mahesh Mehta, Delhi

ITA 3347/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…1,48,51,840/- made by AO on account of undisclosed sales of katha. 33. In these circumstances, judgments relied upon by the ld. AR for the assessees cited as Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 158, 3347 /Del./2014 it VS. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 325 ITR 422 and CIT vs. Meera Goyal ITA No.1263/2011 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. So, the amount of Rs.4,08,00,000/- has been rightly treated as income of the assessee in the year of receipt i.e. AY 2009-10 and not in the AY 2014-15 as contended by the ld. AR for the assessees because as on date no dispute qua the said amo…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Kusum Mehta, New Delhi

ITA 2773/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…1,48,51,840/- made by AO on account of undisclosed sales of katha. 33. In these circumstances, judgments relied upon by the ld. AR for the assessees cited as Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 158, 3347 /Del./2014 it VS. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 325 ITR 422 and CIT vs. Meera Goyal ITA No.1263/2011 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. So, the amount of Rs.4,08,00,000/- has been rightly treated as income of the assessee in the year of receipt i.e. AY 2009-10 and not in the AY 2014-15 as contended by the ld. AR for the assessees because as on date no dispute qua the said amo…

Kusum Mehta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2504/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…1,48,51,840/- made by AO on account of undisclosed sales of katha. 33. In these circumstances, judgments relied upon by the ld. AR for the assessees cited as Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 158, 3347 /Del./2014 it VS. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 325 ITR 422 and CIT vs. Meera Goyal ITA No.1263/2011 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. So, the amount of Rs.4,08,00,000/- has been rightly treated as income of the assessee in the year of receipt i.e. AY 2009-10 and not in the AY 2014-15 as contended by the ld. AR for the assessees because as on date no dispute qua the said amo…

Mahesh Mehta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2503/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…1,48,51,840/- made by AO on account of undisclosed sales of katha. 33. In these circumstances, judgments relied upon by the ld. AR for the assessees cited as Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 158, 3347 /Del./2014 it VS. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 325 ITR 422 and CIT vs. Meera Goyal ITA No.1263/2011 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. So, the amount of Rs.4,08,00,000/- has been rightly treated as income of the assessee in the year of receipt i.e. AY 2009-10 and not in the AY 2014-15 as contended by the ld. AR for the assessees because as on date no dispute qua the said amo…

R S Triveni Foods P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh,Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(ix)

…ection 56(2)(ix) by Finance Act 2014, which is reproduced hereunder:- Section 56 Finance Act, 2014 6.10 Taxability of advance for transfer of a capital asset where advance is forfeited (Sections 51 and 56) In Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 158/109 Taxman 250 (SC) it was held that forfeiture of advance money received for transfer of capital asset cannot be treated as revenue receipt chargeable to tax. In order to overcome this ruling by the Supreme Court, section 56 relating to income from other sources has been amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 by inserting a new clause (ix) in…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Iqbal Chand Khurana Through Legal Heir Ms. Anu Khurana, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 2798/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Khurana, C.AFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R

…1,45,74,732/-) is treated as a capital receipt not taxable in view of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Travancore Rubber 4 ITA.No.2798/Del./2015 Shri Iqbal Chand Khurana through L.H. Ms. Anu Khurana, New Delhi. & Tea Co. Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 158 (SC) in which it was held that “where advance money forfeited is more than the cost of acquisition, in such a case, the excess of the advance money forfeited over the cost of acquisition of such asset shall be a capital receipt only”. Accordingly the assessee in his computation of income has given effect of this money retained by him in the previ…

Chheda Housing Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 86/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Chheda Housing Addl. Cit-32(1) Development Corporation 2Nd Floor, C-11, Pratyakshkar 109-111, Goyal Shopping Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Centre, Opp. Railway Station, Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaefc1484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram With Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (Ar) Respondent By : Shri H.N. Singh Cit –Dr With Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram with Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (AR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh CIT –DR with Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.DR)
Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 254(1)

…T Vs Abbasbhoy A Dehgamwalla (195 ITR 28 Mumbai (vi) CIT Vs Asoka Marketing Ltd (164 ITR 664 Calcutta) (vii) DCIT Vs Ýogen Sinhgwi (ITA No.477/M/2011 dated 01.11.2017) (viii) ACIT Vs Jackie Shroff (2018) 194 TTJ 760 (Mumbai) (ix) CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd (325 ITR 422 SC) (x) CIT Vs Tata services Ltd (122 ITR 594 Bombay) (xi) CIT Vs Vijay Flexible Container (186 ITR 693 Bombay) (xii) K.R. Smith Vs ACIT (268ITR 436 Mad), (xiii) CIT Vs Smt. Laxmidevi Ratni (2008) (296 ITE 363 MP-HC) The learned AR of the assessee submits that the case laws relied by assessing officer in Tata Services (supra) and Vijay Flexible C…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Frontier Land Development Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5947/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:-5947/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Frontiner Land Ward – 9 (3), Room No.413A, Development Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, C. R. Building D-293, Defence Colony, New New Delhi Delhi – 24 (PAN No. AAACF8742M) APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Respondent by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CA Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing : 27.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28.05…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5884/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…ons reported in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265…

Mr. Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…ons reported in the case of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (10\964) 53 ITR 261 (SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265…