“right to receive”

Kalaben Uttamchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () I.T.A. No.2954/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

held that mere postponement or non-receipt of an income does not negate its taxability under the accrual system unless the right to receive it is legally surrendered. Since the appellant has failed to furnish credible evidence that the interest was waived and since the mercantile system requires accrual-based

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

books of accounts treated all accrued interest as income. The AO held that the income accrues as and when the assessee acquires the right to receive such income. Thus, in the case of government securities, although interest becomes due for payment only at 6-monthly intervals, such interest certainly accrues

Jt. CIT (OSD) -2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

books of accounts treated all accrued interest as income. The AO held that the income accrues as and when the assessee acquires the right to receive such income. Thus, in the case of government securities, although interest becomes due for payment only at 6-monthly intervals, such interest certainly accrues

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

books of accounts treated all accrued interest as income. The AO held that the income accrues as and when the assessee acquires the right to receive such income. Thus, in the case of government securities, although interest becomes due for payment only at 6-monthly intervals, such interest certainly accrues

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

books of accounts treated all accrued interest as income. The AO held that the income accrues as and when the assessee acquires the right to receive such income. Thus, in the case of government securities, although interest becomes due for payment only at 6-monthly intervals, such interest certainly accrues

DCIT(TDS)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) – 2(1), Mumbai, ............... Appellant V/S Piramal Enterprises Limited, Piramal Ananta, Agastya Corporate Park Kamini Junction Lbs Marg Opp. Fire Brigade Kurla, ……………… Respondent Mumbai – 400070 Pan : Aaacn5024A

acquired the loans in the course of its business and the payment made to the transferors is the purchase consideration for acquiring the right to receive the principal along with interest from the debtor at maturity. The assessee further submitted that the consideration paid is lump sum towards the assets ... loans, NCDs and accrued interest till the date of transfer and the consideration is paid for the purchase of an asset being “the right to receive” and no part of the consideration can be termed as “interest” paid by the assessee to the transferors. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order

ITO-41(3)(2), Mumbai vs. K S Chamankar Enterprises, Malad (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer, Ward V/S. K S Chamankar Enterprises, – 41(3)(2), Room No. 851, बनाम B-15, Pethe Nagar, Kedarmal 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Road, Malad(E), Mumbai – Bandra Kurla Complex, 400097, Maharashtra Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfk5823R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

project. Total cost of the said project was Rs 100 cr. out of which it had completed work worth Rs 60cr. with a right to receive Rs. 81.05 cr. Therefore, the excess of Rs 21.05 cr was liable to be taxed as income of the year. The AO after confronting

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

proposed by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP arises entirely from such a notional construct. It is neither a contractual right to receive interest nor an actual flow of income. In such circumstances, the said adjustment fails to meet the threshold condition of “interest paid” under Article

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Kekin Kunverji Chheda, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Kaushal Yashwant Agarwal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

extinguishment of right of specific performance under the contract of sale. Hence, damages not liable to capital gains. Relevant extracts of the judgment "right to receive compensation is statutory right, the right that a person acquires on the establishment of a breach of contract is at best a mere right ... objections in the suit and but for the compromise, there would have been prolonged litigation and uncertainty about fate of litigation. ix. The right to receive damages accrued on the date of consent decree only and not before. 15. In the case of the assessee also MOU was not capable