← All Phrases

“right to receive”

Judicial DoctrinesAccrualAccrual601 judgments

The decision most relied on for right to receive is CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (358 ITR 295), cited in 935 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on right to receive

CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.
358 ITR 295 · 2013 · Supreme Court
935
citing judgments

When an income or expenditure is revenue neutral across different assessment years, where any benefit derived is offset by a corresponding liability or reversal, no additional tax liability arises, particularly concerning income recognition under the mercantile system of accounting.

E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
26 ITR 27 · 1954 · Supreme Court
256
citing judgments

Income is taxable only when it represents real income, not notional income. It accrues only when there is a vested right to receive it, typically upon the occurrence of a transfer or event, rather than merely on a time basis.

State Bank of Travancore v. CIT
158 ITR 102 · 1986 · Supreme Court
222
citing judgments

Under the mercantile system of accounting, interest income accrues and is taxable in the year it arises, even for "sticky" or doubtful loans, as the right to receive the income is paramount, not its actual receipt, provided there is an agreement for payment.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court
215
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas
41 ITR 367 · 1961 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

Income is diverted by an overriding charge, and thus not taxable, when it never truly accrues to the assessee due to a prior obligation. Conversely, income that first accrues to the assessee and is then applied to discharge an obligation out of that income is taxable.

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.
273 ITR 1 · 2005 · Supreme Court
140
citing judgments

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 835 · 1971 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

Income accrues when it becomes due, vesting the assessee with the right to claim the amount, even if payment is not immediate. It requires a corresponding liability from the other party to pay, emphasizing real rather than hypothetical accrual, particularly for assessees using the mercantile system of accounting.

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.
330 ITR 440 · 2011 · High Court
125
citing judgments

Interest income is taxable under the mercantile system of accounting even if it is not actually recovered, provided there is a right to receive it. The decision also touches upon the treatment of bad debts and provisions for doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia).

Judgments citing right to receive

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2873/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

However, in the return of income filed for tax purposes, the interest on securities is taxed on accrued and due basis since the right to receive interest on securities arises on the due date only which falls after the accounting year. The AO has taxed such interest which has neither ... this ground of appeal is covered in favour of the assessee vide the aforementioned orders of the Tribunal and Bombay High Court. The right to receive interest on securities arises on due date only, which falls after the accounting year and, accordingly, it cannot be taxed in the accounting year

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

Benches at Mumbai in the case of Shrusti Trading Pvt. Ltd. and in the case of Swarna Trading Pvt. Ltd. has held that right to receive interest under Section 244A is contingent till the assessment is made under Section 143(3) of the Act or the period when limitation ... Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT , wherein it has been held that income accrues when right to receive is acquired and such right can be said to have been acquired when an enforceable debt is created in favour of the assessee. This legal position

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

accrue on a year on year basis and shall be payable on the Redemption Date. The Shareholder shall not have the 5. Voting right to receive notice of, or to attend and vote at a shareholders/general meeting of the Company. ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 15 of 31 At any time ... said that the preference shares issued by the assessee is in the nature of equity. It is only when the assessee has a right to receive periodic payments can it be said that income has accrued to an assessee under the mercantile system of accounting. For example

M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Banglaoore

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

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

accrue on a year on year basis and shall be payable on the Redemption Date. The Shareholder shall not have the 5. Voting right to receive notice of, or to attend and vote at a shareholders/general meeting of the Company. ITA Nos.2332, 2550/Bang/2019 Page 15 of 31 At any time ... said that the preference shares issued by the assessee is in the nature of equity. It is only when the assessee has a right to receive periodic payments can it be said that income has accrued to an assessee under the mercantile system of accounting. For example

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

payment schedules, arranging of funds & other resources for development and construction of project, etc are done by the Developer alone. Except the right to receive agreed revenue share through designated Escrow Bank Accounts towards consideration for Land contribution, the assessee has no role, right, responsibility, accountability, liability in the said

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

payment schedules, arranging of funds & other resources for development and construction of project, etc are done by the Developer alone. Except the right to receive agreed revenue share through designated Escrow Bank Accounts towards consideration for Land contribution, the assessee has no role, right, responsibility, accountability, liability in the said

ACIT 24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gandhi Plastic Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4032/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S Gandhi Plastic Industries 5-D, 1St Floor, Mogra Village, Income-Tax-24(1), Mumbai Room No.604, Piramal Chambers Mogra Village Road, Andheri Jeejeebhoy Lane, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai Pan : Aacfg6912F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 28

business income. From the above observation it is evident that the assessee has received the said compensation only on relinquishment of his right to receive the residential flat as per the allotment letter dated 16/01/2008. On perusal of the documents available on record, we infer that the Ld.CIT

Wns Global; Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

company and Aviva global services private limited. On acquisition of the business assessee acquired commercial right from its associated enterprise which included the right to receive revenue coupled with all the obligation and liability is with respect to the said contract. The assessee classified the same rights acquired

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

company and Aviva global services private limited. On acquisition of the business assessee acquired commercial right from its associated enterprise which included the right to receive revenue coupled with all the obligation and liability is with respect to the said contract. The assessee classified the same rights acquired

Dell India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 562/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

income during the current year would tantamount to taxing the gross receipts and not the profits or gains arising from such sale. Right to receive The Honourable DRP has erred in stating that the appellant has the right to receive the income as even when customers opt to cancel ... assessee acquires the absolute right to utilize the amount so received. Thus, the income crystallizes as soon as a customer makes payment. The right to receive the income vests with the assessee as soon as the services are purchased by customers. Since, the assessee employed mercantile system of accounting, income

Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)Section 801ASection 80I

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation claimed on the right to receive annuity which is only in the nature of right to receive payment for the work done as also stated in paras

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

Assessing Officer is not the amount which has accrued to the assessee. The test of accrual is whether there is a right to receive the amount though later and such right is legally enforceable. The amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not therefore be subjected ... Assessing Officer is not the amount which has accrued to the respondent- assessee. The test of accrual is whether there is a right to receive the amount though later and such right is legally enforceable. In fact as observed by the Supreme Court in E.D. Sassoon

Shri. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

purpose of capital gains. For the purpose of taxability the income has to really accrue to the assessee”. In this case the right to receive the sale consideration is not accrued at the time of signing of agreement on 8th February, 2009. Without the accrual of consideration, the assessee ... that actually some construction has taken place at the impugned property in the previous relevant to the assessment year under consideration and the right to receive the sales consideration has not actually accrued to the assessee.” Further it is held that “Unless the party has performed or is willing

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das
Section 115OSection 14A

arise to him outside India during such year" The basic principle of accrual of income is that the assessee must have acquired a right to receive the same; there must be a debt owed by somebody to him. In this context, we would like to rely upon the Apex Court ... Sasson V. CIT (26 ITR 27). The relevant extracts of the decision are re-produced as under: "If the assessee acquires a right to receive the income, the income can be said to have accrued to him though it may be received later on its being ascertained. The basic conception

Red Hat India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5831/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5831/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5833/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5834/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, A 201, Supreme Business Park, बनाम/ Mumbai-400 020 Supreme City, Hiranandani Vs. Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6034/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6036/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6037/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Cir-15(3)(1), R. No. 473, Aayakar A 201, Supreme Business बनाम/ Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Park, Supreme City, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai-400 076 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7097N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Shri SiddeshFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 9(1)(vi)

there is a debt owed to the assessee by somebody at that moment. From this, it follows that there must be the "right to receive the income on a particular date, so as to bring about a creditor and debtor relationship on the relevant date". The Court further explained that ... right to receive a particular sum under the agreement would not be sufficient unless the right accrued by 16 I.T.A. No. 5831/Mum/2017 & Others M/s Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. rendering of services and not by promising for services and where the right to receive is interior to rendering of service

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

Bombay High Court through writ petition. It is clearly established from the above facts that the appellant didn’t have any right to receive any sum. The appellant received compensation only pursuant to the said order of the court. 37. On this issue detailed findings ... verbatim as under: “It is clearly established from the above facts that the appellant and her co owners did not have any right to receive any sum from the MOD except the lease rental till the date of the Order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 17 June

Leila Advani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MishraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

honorable Bombay High Court through writ petition. It is clearly established from the above facts that the appellant didn’t have any right to receive any sum. The appellant received compensation for the complete extinguishment of her right, title and interest in the said land only pursuant to the said ... verbatim as under: “It is clearly established from the above facts that the appellant and her co owners did not have any right to receive any sum from the MOD except the lease rental till the date of the Order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 17 June

Mr.Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R
Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

brought to tax under section 45 read with section 48. [Para 27]  In the present case, the assessee did not acquire any right to receive income, inasmuch as such alleged right was dependent upon the necessary permissions being obtained. This being the case, in the circumstances, there was no debt ... owed to the assessee by the developers and therefore, the assessee have not acquired any right to receive income under the JDA. This being so, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset so as to attract sections 45 and 48. [Para 28]  Therefore, the High

Jt. CIT (OSD) CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mumbai Nashik Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1590/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejt.Cit(Osd)-Central Circle -7(2) V. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan Unit 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aaecm3349K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(m)

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation claimed on the right to receive annuity which is only in the nature of right to receive payment for the work done as also stated in paras ... which the assessee was able to receive annuity from NHAI under the concession agreement. The assessee classified such cost incurred and right to receive annuity on the toll road as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act. This depreciation was denied

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1588/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

For Appellant: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80I

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation claimed on the right to receive annuity which is only in the nature of right to receive payment for the work done as also stated in paras ... facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation claimed on the right to receive annuity which is only in the nature of right to receive payment for the work done as also stated in paras