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.

How many judgments cite Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

72 judgments on BharatTax cite Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT (325 ITR 422), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 143(1), Section 106, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 17.

Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT (325 ITR 422)

Girish Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/136/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…y (supra) to the effect that if the computation as provided under Section 48 could not be applied to a particular transaction, it must be regarded as “never intended by Section 45 to be the subject of the charge”. 30.1 In CIT v. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC), the Assessee had entered into an agreement for supply of a cement plant with a condition that in the event of delay caused in delivery of the machinery, the Assessee would be compensated at 5% of the price of the respective portion of the machinery without proof of actual loss. With the supplier failing to supply the machinery within…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Syncom Formulations (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years

ITA 11/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.C.Jain & Sh. Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Ranjeesh K. Arvind

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…forfeited amount was disclosed as capital reserve and not credited to the profit & loss account. The AR has also relied on a number of decisions cited above and also the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Travancore Rubber & Tea Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 158. Thus, it was argued that since it was a capital receipt, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. is not called for. From the perusal of the submissions and facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee has raised capital through issue of convertible warrants which were to be converted into equity shares is an undisputed fact. During the year…

Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years

ITA 6429/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.C.Jain & Sh. Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Ranjeesh K. Arvind

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…forfeited amount was disclosed as capital reserve and not credited to the profit & loss account. The AR has also relied on a number of decisions cited above and also the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Travancore Rubber & Tea Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 158. Thus, it was argued that since it was a capital receipt, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. is not called for. From the perusal of the submissions and facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee has raised capital through issue of convertible warrants which were to be converted into equity shares is an undisputed fact. During the year…

Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years

ITA 6428/MUM/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.C.Jain & Sh. Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Ranjeesh K. Arvind

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…forfeited amount was disclosed as capital reserve and not credited to the profit & loss account. The AR has also relied on a number of decisions cited above and also the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Travancore Rubber & Tea Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 158. Thus, it was argued that since it was a capital receipt, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. is not called for. From the perusal of the submissions and facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee has raised capital through issue of convertible warrants which were to be converted into equity shares is an undisputed fact. During the year…

Logitronics Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr

ITA/1623/2010HC Delhi18 Feb 2011

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

Section 2(24)Section 41(1)

…said Bench were the Members of the Bench which had rendered the decision in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (supra). 17. This issue cropped up again in the Supreme Court in the case of The Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T., Trivandrum [243 ITR 158]. Analyzing these judgments, the Court reiterated that in Tattersall (supra), it had been held that the quality and ITA No. 1623 of 2010 & ITA No.503 of 2010 Page 12 of 24 nature of a receipt for income tax purposes were fixed once and for all when receipt was received and that no subsequent operation could change the na…