Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.65 seconds)
Dcit, C-1(1), Chandigarh vs M/S H.S. Tuli & Sons Builders Pvt. Ltd., ... on 14 June, 2022 cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs The Rural Education & Women Welfare ... on 22 October, 2018

and the Government wh ich h as ref erred to arb itr ation. T he arbitr ator awarded cer tain amount by way of compensation f or the work done and also a warded in terest. T he question arose in the assess men t proceedings, whether the in terest a warded is inco me and is l iable to be included in his assess men t. T he Inco me- tax Off icer treated the same as inco me and included it af ter deducting the expenses. T he appeal pref erred by the assessee was allo wed hold ing th at in teres t is no t inco me. An appe al pref erred by the Revenue was d is missed by the T ribunal. On a ref erence, the Or issa High Cour t - CIT v. B.N. Agar wal a & Co. [1993] 200 IT R 246, ans wered the f ollo w3 ing ques tion in f avour of the assessee, f ollo wing its earlier decis ion in Gov ind a Choudhary & Sons v. CIT [1977] 109 IT R 497:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Govinda Choudhury & Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 1 March, 1977

"Whe ther, on the f ac ts and in the circu ms tances of the case, in teres t awarded by an arbitr ator is inco me to be assessed to tax under the Act?"(p. 247). 4. It is no w brought to our no tice th at the decis ion of the Orissa H igh Court in Govinda Choudhary & Sons' case (supr a) was brought to th is Cour t in appe al and has since been disposed of , wh ich is C IT v. Gov ind Choudhary & Sons [1993) 203 IT R 881. In the said decis ion, it is recorded th at learned counsel f or the assessee conceded th at in teres t did constitu te a revenue rece ipt. T he court, ho wever, held on the o ther ques tion (ar is ing in that appeal) th at the said amount of in terest canno t be taxed under the head "Inco me f rom other sources" wh ich necess arily me an t th at it has to be taxed as a bus iness receip t. It is true th at on the question whe ther the in terest constitu tes inco me or not, the s aid decis ion is b ased upon a concess ion bu t we are of the opin ion that it was a concession rightly made and is correct in l aw. Accordingly, we hold that interest is inco me and it has to be 9 ITA No 1516, 1517 & 1515/Chd/2019 M/s. H.S. Tuli & Sons Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Orissa High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs B.N. Agarwala And Co. on 13 July, 1992

also the interest element which have been awarded as part of the arbitration as business receipt which is against the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. B.N. Agarwala & Co., 129 Taxman 78 (SC). It was further submitted that the various jurisdictional High Court decisions relied on by the ld. CIT (A) are distinguishable from the instant case as no issue of such Arbitration Award was involved in those cases. It was accordingly submitted that the estimation of N.P. of 8% was purely on estimation and surmises without any material on record and the said findings of the ld CI T(A) deserves to be set aside.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 15 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs New Savan Sugar And Gur Refining Co. Ltd. on 18 April, 1989

contract receipt but also the interest element which have been awarded as part of the arbitration as business receipt which is against the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. B.N. Agarwala & Co(Supr a). We have gone through the order of the ld CI T(A) and find that the ld CI T(A) infact has relied upon the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that interest on arbitration award cannot be treated as income from other sources as it partakes the colour of business receipts and has to be assessed as business receipts. We therefore find that the ld CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and various judicial pronouncements on the subject and therefore, we don't find any justifiable basis to disturb the said findings of the ld CIT(A). In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are dismissed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Kanyakumari C.S.I. Trust Association vs Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis on 6 June, 2022

"Whe ther, on the f ac ts and in the circu ms tances of the case, in teres t awarded by an arbitr ator is inco me to be assessed to tax under the Act?"(p. 247). 4. It is no w brought to our no tice th at the decis ion of the Orissa H igh Court in Govinda Choudhary & Sons' case (supr a) was brought to th is Cour t in appe al and has since been disposed of , wh ich is C IT v. Gov ind Choudhary & Sons [1993) 203 IT R 881. In the said decis ion, it is recorded th at learned counsel f or the assessee conceded th at in teres t did constitu te a revenue rece ipt. T he court, ho wever, held on the o ther ques tion (ar is ing in that appeal) th at the said amount of in terest canno t be taxed under the head "Inco me f rom other sources" wh ich necess arily me an t th at it has to be taxed as a bus iness receip t. It is true th at on the question whe ther the in terest constitu tes inco me or not, the s aid decis ion is b ased upon a concess ion bu t we are of the opin ion that it was a concession rightly made and is correct in l aw. Accordingly, we hold that interest is inco me and it has to be 9 ITA No 1516, 1517 & 1515/Chd/2019 M/s. H.S. Tuli & Sons Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document
1