← All Phrases

“right to receive”

Judicial DoctrinesAccrualAccrual601 judgments

HYDERABAD RING ROAD PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,INDIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE

In the result Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4090/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chinu Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

assessee’s case, the assessee is given a separate consideration in the form of right to the annuity from Government and no right to receive toll as the same is given to the HUDA. Fourthly, there is no mention of license being granted Page 10 of 23 ITA No. 4090/DEL/2025 ... been capitalized in the books of account but for the purpose of Income Tax, depreciation was claimed on the same treating the Right to receive Annuity as intangible asset. 29. Lastly, the assessee’s attempt to distinguish L & T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd with its own, on the ground that

ACIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI vs. M/S HYDERABAD RING ROAD PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3599/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Chinu Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

assessee’s case, the assessee is given a separate consideration in the form of right to the annuity from Government and no right to receive toll as the same is given to the HUDA. Fourthly, there is no mention of license being granted Page 10 of 23 ITA No. 4090/DEL/2025 ... been capitalized in the books of account but for the purpose of Income Tax, depreciation was claimed on the same treating the Right to receive Annuity as intangible asset. 29. Lastly, the assessee’s attempt to distinguish L & T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd with its own, on the ground that

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

contrary to the settled principles governing accrual of income and the doctrine of real income. In the absence of accrual of the right to receive the income during the relevant previous year, the impugned addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

contrary to the settled principles governing accrual of income and the doctrine of real income. In the absence of accrual of the right to receive the income during the relevant previous year, the impugned addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

contrary to the settled principles governing accrual of income and the doctrine of real income. In the absence of accrual of the right to receive the income during the relevant previous year, the impugned addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

contrary to the settled principles governing accrual of income and the doctrine of real income. In the absence of accrual of the right to receive the income during the relevant previous year, the impugned addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR

ITA 628/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, विशाखापट्नम बेंच में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्यायिक

MUMMALANENI RAGHAVAN,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

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

ITA 627/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat, Stating That The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Was Based Merely On System Generated Information, Which Is Invalid & Without Any Tangible Material. In The Grounds Of Appeal, It Was Mentioned That The Assessment U/S 147 Is Beyond Time Limit Prescribed & Hence, The Proceedings Are Void-Ab-Initio.

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 56

appellant. Since the addition itself is deleted, the consequent penalty does not have any legs to stand. The assessee did not acquire any right to receive income, in as much as alleged right was depending upon necessary permissions being obtained and in this case, no such permissions could be obtained

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

liability to deduct tax at source in India. It was pointed out that the income was said to accrue or arise, when the right to receive the income came into existence. No doubt the agents had rendered the services abroad and solicited orders, but the right to receive the commission

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

goodwill. The A.O accordingly reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act. The A.O was of the view that the right to receive profit in a partnership firm is a capital asset u/s. 2(14) of the Act and relinquishment of the right of receive the profit

KAUSHAL GANPATBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(INTL. TAXATION), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: 04.02.2026
Section 147Section 5Section 5(2)(a)Section 6

from the foreign employer and credited to non resident external account maintained by the assessee with HSBC Mumbai. The assessee was in lawful right to receive these monies, as an employee, at the place of employment, i.e. at the location of its foreign employer, and it is a matter ... such is received by the assessee or his agent. He pointed out that the ITAT noted that the assessee was in lawful right to receive this money as an employee at the place of employment and it is a matter of convenience that the money is therefore transferred to India

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7865/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: adverting to the merits, it is necessary to record that Ground No. 1 raised in the cross-objection was expressly stated to be not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the cross-objection is dismissed as not pressed. The adjudication hereinafter is, therefore, confined exclusively to Ground No. 2 of the cross- objection, which pertains to the allowability of interest expenditure under section 57 of the Act. 4. Briefly stated, th

Section 143(3)Section 57

tentative and provisional (iii) There is no basis as per which the assessee has a right to pay and the creditors has are right to receive. (iv) There is no basis of computation of interest payable which has been provided by the assessee (v) The provisions made on account

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7798/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

tentative and provisional (iii) There is no basis as per which the assessee has a right to pay and the creditors has are right to receive. (iv) There is no basis of computation of interest payable which has been provided by the assessee (v) The provisions made on account

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7797/MUM/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

tentative and provisional (iii) There is no basis as per which the assessee has a right to pay and the creditors has are right to receive. (iv) There is no basis of computation of interest payable which has been provided by the assessee (v) The provisions made on account

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HITESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7796/MUM/2025[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2000-01

Bench: the Tribunal, as stipulated under CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the present appeals fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the said Circular. In view of this admitted position and having regard to the binding nature of the Circular, which expressly applies even to pending appeals, the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals stands squarely governed by the said Circular. 3

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 268ASection 57

tentative and provisional (iii) There is no basis as per which the assessee has a right to pay and the creditors has are right to receive. (iv) There is no basis of computation of interest payable which has been provided by the assessee (v) The provisions made on account

NOMURA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2851/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145

which have received judicial recognition. The accounting propositions referred to were as follows: (i) The income is to be accounted for only when right to receive the same has accrued in favour of a person thereby creating realizable debt in his favour. A legally enforceable right should have accrued

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

capitalization cost of toll road has been treated as ‘intangible asset’ and depreciation has been claimed thereon. The assessee further submitted that, right to receive toll revenue is in the nature of intangible asset falls within the purview of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income ... therefore, the assessee is eligible for depreciation on the said right to receive toll revenue being intangible asset falling within the purview of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and accordingly, the 8 BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited entire cost incurred towards construction of infrastructure facility giving right

SURESH KUMAR,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-4, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain,CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 28Section 56

under Section 45(5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note that compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1696/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 1Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Showing 1–20 of 601 · Page 1 of 31

...
right to receive — 601 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax