Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.69 seconds)
Shri K.Pandiarajan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 8 January, 2026 cites

Guffic Chem P.Ltd vs C.I.T,Belgaum & Anr on 16 March, 2011

In Guffic Chem (P) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court considered the taxability of receipts and their classification as capital or revenue. The __________ Page 12 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/02/2026 03:09:37 pm ) TCA Nos. 92 and 93 of 2013 question that had been framed for determination was whether a payment under an agreement not to compete (negative covenant) is a capital or a revenue receipt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 71 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Baroda Cement And Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 December, 1985

30. The decisions of the Gujarat and Delhi High Court in Baroda Cement and Chemical Ltd. (supra) and J Dalmia (supra) would support the conclusions we have arrived at. In both cases, the right to sue was held to be a capital asset, the assessing authority bringing to tax the compensation received as capital gains. Ultimately, the Court quashed the demands on the ground that the question of capital gains would not arise in the absence of cost of acquisition.
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 21 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi ... vs J. Dalmia on 21 May, 1984

30. The decisions of the Gujarat and Delhi High Court in Baroda Cement and Chemical Ltd. (supra) and J Dalmia (supra) would support the conclusions we have arrived at. In both cases, the right to sue was held to be a capital asset, the assessing authority bringing to tax the compensation received as capital gains. Ultimately, the Court quashed the demands on the ground that the question of capital gains would not arise in the absence of cost of acquisition.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 36 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1