← All Phrases

“deferred consideration”

Capital GainsSection 48Section 4818 judgments

The decision most relied on for deferred consideration is 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (264 ITR 370), cited in 18 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on deferred consideration

23 ITR 230, 239 (SC); Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT
264 ITR 370 · 2003 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Expenses are to be allowed proportionately, with the expenditure pertaining to the relevant year allowed in the year under consideration and the balance deferred to subsequent years.

Judgments citing deferred consideration

Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1137/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

Ground No.6: Without prejudice to the above grounds, the AO/DRP failed to consider the revised sales price of the share arising from a contingent deferred consideration that was not received by the assessee. 6.1 The AO/DRP failed to consider the revised sale price arising due to the contingent deferred consideration ... same will also not be taxable in India under the DTAA. Re: Ground of Appeal No. 6; Without prejudice to the above, Contingent Deferred Consideration 31 ITA No.1137/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2022-23 Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte. Ltd. -Not Taxable in the Absence of Accrual or Receipt 56. As per the terms

Rajesh Balvantrai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, andFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

According to the learned DR, this shows that the Assessing Officer has not discharged his duty in the manner expected under law, as he deferred consideration of incriminating material despite being obliged to adjudicate the same in the assessee’s case under section 153C. It was therefore submitted that

Rajesh Balvantrai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1159/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, andFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

According to the learned DR, this shows that the Assessing Officer has not discharged his duty in the manner expected under law, as he deferred consideration of incriminating material despite being obliged to adjudicate the same in the assessee’s case under section 153C. It was therefore submitted that

Rajesh Balvantrai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1158/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

According to the learned DR, this shows that the Assessing Officer has not discharged his duty in the manner expected under law, as he deferred consideration of incriminating material despite being obliged to adjudicate the same in the assessee’s case under section 153C. It was therefore submitted that

Rajesh Balvantrai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

According to the learned DR, this shows that the Assessing Officer has not discharged his duty in the manner expected under law, as he deferred consideration of incriminating material despite being obliged to adjudicate the same in the assessee’s case under section 153C. It was therefore submitted that

Ss Theatres LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1038/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1038/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ss Theatres Llp, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.3, 2Nd Street Subba Rao Avenue Vs. Income Tax, Greams Road S.O., Non Corporate Circle-11(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aadfs 5384D]

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 154Section 5

also submitted that in A.Y. 2020-21, an estimated debt adjustment of Rs. 2,66,75,972/- was reduced from the deferred consideration of Rs.28,66,66,666/- relating to the current year. The Ld. A.R has argued that the alleged difference of Rs.3,06,57,361/- neither accrued

ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

consideration of Rs.93,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety-Three Crores only) to be paid for all assets and liabilities except for unbilled revenue. ii. Deferred consideration for unbilled revenue accrued up to the Effective Date payable by Buyer to the Seller on realization from TANGEDCO….” 9.3 Accordingly ... legal owner of the business till the date of transfer. The assessee is therefore noted to have explained the reason for incorporating a deferred consideration component, apart from the lumpsum consideration of Rs.93 crores, as it was not possible for the parties to quantify the unbilled revenues for the interim

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2330/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2330/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2618/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv. & Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. Department By : Mr.A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

consideration of Rs.93,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety-Three Crores only) to be paid for all assets and liabilities except for unbilled revenue. ii. Deferred consideration for unbilled revenue accrued up to the Effective Date payable by Buyer to the Seller on realization from TANGEDCO...." 9.3 Accordingly ... legal owner of the business till the date of transfer. The assessee is therefore noted to have explained the reason for incorporating a deferred consideration component, apart from the lumpsum consideration of Rs.93 crores, as it was not possible for the parties to quantify the unbilled revenues for the interim

Ssnc Fintech Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 916/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Ketan K. VedFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 920

headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland. The acquisition was executed through a share purchase agreement for an upfront cash consideration of 1,187 crore and a deferred consideration of up to Rs. 608 crore. During the year, we invested in our subsidiaries, for the purpose of operations and expansion, as follows : Subsidiary ... Zurich, Switzerland. The acquisition was executed through a share purchase agreement for an upfront cash consideration of Rs. 1,87 crore and a deferred consideration of up to Rs. 608 Cr. The deferred consideration is payable to the selling shareholders of Lodestone on the third anniversary of the acquisition date

Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo, H.P vs. Deyem Industry, Nalagarh Solan

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 708/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 708/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The ITO Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh बनाम DEYEM INDUSTRY Nalagarh, Ropar Road Near Hazat Khana, Nalagarh, H.P.- 174101 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAGFD0437L अपीलार्थी/ Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ankit Awal, Ms. Khushbu Sood, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual) सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Awal & Ms. Khushbu Sood, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 53A

date, i.e., in AY 2013-14, when it was offered to tax. This tax treatment is in accordance with well-settled legal principles that deferred consideration under a contractual agreement cannot be subjected to tax in an assessment year in which it has not accrued. 6.8 The Ld. AR placed

Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 92B

headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland. The acquisition was executed through a share purchase agreement for an upfront cash consideration of 1,187 crore and a deferred consideration of up to Rs. 608 crore. During the year, we invested in our subsidiaries, for the purpose of operations and expansion, as follows : Subsidiary ... Zurich, Switzerland. The acquisition was executed through a share purchase agreement for an upfront cash consideration of Rs. 1, 87 crore and a deferred consideration of up to Rs. 608 Cr. The deferred consideration is payable to the selling shareholders of Lodestone on the third anniversary of the acquisition date

Shuvro Chattaraj, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

with a developer M/s. R.K. Constructions, a proprietary concern of Dr. Malaya Mukherjee for joint development. The terms of payment were under deferred consideration. Pursuant to the above MOU, the assessee and said developer executed an unregistered development agreement on 10.02.2012, with the following terms: a. In lieu ... land, the assessee would get Rs. 1,95,00,000 (One Crore Ninety five lakh) in deferred consideration manner spread over 60 months; b. Along with 8 (Eight) flats with 8(Eight) car park upon construction. 5. The assessee received Rs. 38 (Thirty Eight) Lakh

Vijaywada Gudugolanu Road Project Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1839/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 32(1)(ii)

collect tolls from vehicles passing through them as a consideration for having developed them. The right to collect toll from vehicles was merely a deferred consideration for putting up the Road and for maintaining them during the term under the respective concessionaire agreements. No separate consideration was paid

Huntsman Investments (Netherlands), Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle-2(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4222/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 234B

clause 2.3 of the Share Purchase Agreement ('SPA') dated October 2020, sales consideration contains 2 components: 1. Closing date consideration; and 2. Total deferred consideration (subject to clause 2.6 and 2.7 of the SPA') payable within 18 months of the date of the SPA if conditions mentioned in clause ... fulfilled. Given that deferred consideration is subject to fulfilment of conditions mentioned in clause 2.6 and 2.7 of the SPA, the Assessee has offered to tax for the year under consideration the 'closing date consideration' since the conditions in clause 2.6 and 2.7 of the SPA were only fulfilled

Rainbow Promotors P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1906/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 199

Developers Pvt. Ltd. on 05.07.2017. As per the sale deed, annexed in the paper book, the sale however was made on the basis of deferred consideration where 50% of consideration was received in F.Y. 2017-18 and accordingly the seller deducted TDS thereon to the extent of consideration of Rs.80

JCIT (OSD) Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1489/MUM/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

accrued at all. The High Court had correctly found that in view of the categorical stipulation that interest would be payable on the deferred consideration amount in respect of the sale, which became effective from 1-3- 1977, the interest started accruing on that time basis from

M/S. Tridoss Laboratories Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. - 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1462/MUM/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2002-03
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

accrued at all. The High Court had correctly found that in view of the categorical stipulation that interest would be payable on the deferred consideration amount in respect of the sale, which became effective from 1-3- 1977, the interest started accruing on that time basis from

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Mysuru vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Limited, Mysuru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2551/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd., No.427E, 2Nd Floor, Hebbal Industrial Circle – 1(1), Mysuru. Area, Metagalli, Mysuru – 570 016. Pan : Aaacb 8073 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2Section 288Section 35ASection 43Section 43(6)(c)Section 48Section 49Section 50B

Rs.20 crores for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The CIT(A) observed that the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 also provided for deferred consideration which was capped at Rs.20 crores, which had to be paid in terms of formula prescribed in the agreement dated 25th January ... formula could Page 12 of 18 lead and in fact had led to a situation where no amount on account of deferred consideration for the sale of shares was receivable by the assessee in the immediate succeeding assessment year i.e. assessment year 2007-08. On the analysis of agreement