Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 121 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Kettlewell Bullen And Co vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta on 1 May, 1964

3I Infotech Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs Assessee on 14 August, 2013

Therefore, if he facts of the present case are seen in the light of aforementioned two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT(supra) and Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), then we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, whereby it has been held that the compensation received by the assessee was in the nature of capital. We decline to interfere and this ground of the revenue is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 35 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dy.C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs M/S Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, ... on 23 October, 2018

10. The question whether a particular income arising from the termination of one of the agencies of a multi agency concerned is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt is undoubtedly a difficult question to be answered. The difficulty is inherent in the problem itself. Decisions on this question are numerous. But none of them have laid down a precise principle of universal application, but various workable rules have been evolved for guidance. One of us, speaking for the Court in Kettlewell Bullen & Co.'s case (supra), has laid down the following guidelines for finding out the true nature of such a receipt. The relevant observations read thus :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri V.C. Nannapaneni vs Asstt. Cit on 31 December, 2004

In this regard, the court followed its earlier decision in the case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 53 ITR 261. Further, having regard to the vast area of business done by the assessee as an agent, it was held that the acquisition of agency was in the normal course of business and determination of individual agencies a normal incident not affecting or impairing the trading structure and, therefore, the amount received for the cancellation of such agency did not represent price paid for loss of a capital asset. However, if the compensation was for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competitive business in the commodities in respect of the agency terminated, or for loss of goodwill, such receipt was held to be in the nature of a capital receipt.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) ... vs Karamchand Thapar & Bros Pet Ltd. on 20 September, 1966

In the view that we have taken, it is no longer necessary to embark on the discussion, punctuated by many conflicts of judicial opinion as to whether a managing agency of a company is in the nature of a capital asset and whether it is no like an ordinary asset capable of being transferred from one person to another, and whether the managing agency of the assessee-company was an asset of the character of stock-in-trade of the company. We need only add here that the Supreme Court in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, quoted the following observation of Lord President Normand :
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs K.B.H.M.D.H. Bhiwandiwalla & Co. on 17 December, 1968

10. Another case relied upon by him is Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In this case the assessee-company, which had been formed with the object, inter alia, of carrying on the business of managing agencies, was the managing agent of six companies including the Fort William Jute Co. It surrendered the meaning agency and received in consideration certain things including compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 for loss of office. It was held that the compensation was for loss of capital asset and was not, therefore, in the case laws dealing with the question, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows :
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udhyog on 4 September, 2003

24. However, we notice that notwithstanding noticing that it was a sale of business asset of enduring nature and that it would be a compensation received for such transfer, the question has not been pursued whether capital receipt results in accrual of capital gains so as to be taxed under that head. Because such question was not raised in Kettlewell Bullen & Co. case (supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 55 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next