← All Phrases

“section 28(va)”

Business IncomeSection 28(va)Section 28(va)50 judgments

RASAR BIOGENETICS,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1266/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Us:

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 28

claims of the assessee firm, and thus, after treating the amount of Rs.4.15 crores (supra) as a revenue receipt under the provisions of section 28(va) of the Act, assessed its income vide his order under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 28/12/2018 at the same amount. 7. Aggrieved

RAVI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

In the result, all remaining ground are allowed with the aforesaid directions

ITA 4186/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 254(1)Section 28Section 28(1)

that the transfer of shares to NNCL pursuant to a SPA is a transfer of business and the provisions of section 28(va) were applicable to the aforesaid transfer of shares. 1.5. the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred ... shown profit from transfer of said share and offered it as long-term capital gain. The assessee further stated that provisions of section 28(va) are applicable only to the person, who are engaged in the business and received any consideration towards non complete fees. The assessee was merely shareholder

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI MAHAVEER BHANDARI, LEGAL HEIR- SMT. LALITHA BHANDARI, CHENNAI

ITA 2785/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

PANKAJ INDER WADHWA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1733/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 28

from Nimblepace Packaging Private Limited and Others (collectively referred to as "BK parties") as taxable under section 28(ii)(e) and section 28(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'Act']. Vs. Income Tax Officer 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the amount

KARTHICK CHILAKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 947/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
Section 263Section 28

being the presumed component quantified from the\ntransaction of sale of shares Kailash Shipping Private Limited to\nApollo Logic P. Ltd by invoking Section 28(va) of the Act without\nassigning proper reasons and justification.\n3. The CIT(Appeals) 16 failed to appreciate that transaction of\nsale of shares ... method, which is nothing but book value was\nincorrect and suffered from multiple errors thereby vitiating the\naddition made in terms of section 28(va) of the Act.\n9. The CIT (Appeals)\n16 failed to appreciate that findings from\npara 6 of the impugned order were wrong, erroneous, incorrect,\ninvalid

SAMKEET ARYA HOMES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 365/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Sunjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 68

compared to the firm and thus there was no revenue loss to the Department on account of this transaction. Non-complete consideration under Section 28(VA) of the Act is considered as income and, therefore, the assessee has rightly claimed the same as expenditure as the source of the profit

MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1),

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3052/DEL/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3052/Del/2007 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Modi Entertainment Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 49, Community Centre, New Friends Ward-5(2), Colony, New Delhi- New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm8283G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2004-05, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi Dated 24.03.2007 In Case No. 143/06-07, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 73

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed\nwhereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3488/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2005-06
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

treatment of compensation received from the\ntermination of any agency business which has been further clarified from\nthe new provisions contained under section 28(va)(a) w.e.f. 1-4-2003,\nwherein it is specifically included within the purview of profit and gains\nof business \"any sum whatever received or receivable ... relation to any\nbusiness\".\n36. The contentions raised by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee inter-alia qua\nthe provisions contained under section 28(va) that the existing provisions\nof clause (ii) of section 28(a) is restrictive in its scope as far as taxation of\ncompensation is concerned

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 973/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri. Rony Anthony, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 37Section 37(1)

material on record. We observe that the impugned assessment year is assessment year 2020-2021, which means after the insertion of sub- section 28(va), which sub-section is applicable with effect from 1st April, 2003. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the provisions of section 28(va ... case of Sharp Business Systems 140 TTJ 0607(Del), which is affirmed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court , while interpreting the provisions of section 28(va) of the Act, in Para(15)has observed as under:- "We are conscious of the provisions of section 28(va) inserted in the statute

SAMKEET ARYA HOMES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-10

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 37

compared to the firm and thus there was no revenue loss to the Department on account of this transaction. Non-complete consideration under Section 28(VA) of the Act is considered as income and, therefore, the assessee has rightly claimed the same as expenditure as the source of the profit

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

ITA 724/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002
Section 143(3)

only vide Finance Act,\n2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 that the said capital receipt is now made\ntaxable, i.e. vide section 28(va). According to the Hon'ble Court, a\nliability cannot be created retrospectively and the receipt is a capital\nreceipt which has been brought to tax vide specific legislative mandate ... only vide Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-\n2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable [See: Section 28(va)]. The\nFinance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year\ncompensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a\ncapital receipt

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

ITA 337/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001
Section 143(3)

only vide Finance Act,\n2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 that the said capital receipt is now made\ntaxable, i.e. vide section 28(va). According to the Hon'ble Court, a\nliability cannot be created retrospectively and the receipt is a capital\nreceipt which has been brought to tax vide specific legislative mandate ... only vide Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-\n2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable [See: Section 28(va)]. The\nFinance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year\ncompensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a\ncapital receipt

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

ITA 287/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002
Section 143(3)

only vide Finance Act,\n2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 that the said capital receipt is now made\ntaxable, i.e. vide section 28(va). According to the Hon'ble Court, a\nliability cannot be created retrospectively and the receipt is a capital\nreceipt which has been brought to tax vide specific legislative mandate ... only vide Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-\n2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable [See: Section 28(va)]. The\nFinance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year\ncompensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a\ncapital receipt

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 286/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

only vide Finance Act,\n2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 that the said capital receipt is now made\ntaxable, i.e. vide section 28(va). According to the Hon'ble Court, a\nliability cannot be created retrospectively and the receipt is a capital\nreceipt which has been brought to tax vide specific legislative mandate ... only vide Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-\n2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable [See: Section 28(va)]. The\nFinance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year\ncompensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a\ncapital receipt

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

ITA 7532/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000
Section 143(3)

only vide Finance Act,\n2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 that the said capital receipt is now made\ntaxable, i.e. vide section 28(va). According to the Hon'ble Court, a\nliability cannot be created retrospectively and the receipt is a capital\nreceipt which has been brought to tax vide specific legislative mandate ... only vide Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-\n2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable [See: Section 28(va)]. The\nFinance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year\ncompensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a\ncapital receipt

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORP. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7447/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000
Section 143(3)

only vide Finance Act,\n2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 that the said capital receipt is now made\ntaxable, i.e. vide section 28(va). According to the Hon'ble Court, a\nliability cannot be created retrospectively and the receipt is a capital\nreceipt which has been brought to tax vide specific legislative mandate ... only vide Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-\n2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable [See: Section 28(va)]. The\nFinance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year\ncompensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a\ncapital receipt

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1,LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 636/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

only vide the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable under section 28(va). The Finance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year compensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a capital receipt

SUNDRAM FINANCE LOMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 81/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

only vide the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable under section 28(va). The Finance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year compensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a capital receipt

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-A. LTU, CHENNAI

ITA 80/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

only vide the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable under section 28(va). The Finance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year compensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a capital receipt

SUNDARAM FINANCE,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1, CHENNAI

ITA 79/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

only vide the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable under section 28(va). The Finance Act, 2002 itself indicates that during the relevant assessment year compensation received by the assessee under non-competition agreement was a capital receipt

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3