Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.26 seconds)Section 28 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Rani Lalita Rajya Laxmi on 7 February, 1986
In light of our above observations, we find that the decisions of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Laxmi Devi
Ratani (supra) and K.R. Srinath vs ACIT (supra) relied upon by the ld.
AO was factually distinguishable. In both these decisions, the question
before both the High Courts was whether extinguishment of right to
claim specific performance is taxable u/s 2(47) read with Section
2(14) of the Act. In these cases, the assessees had entered into valid
agreements for sale and thus obtained a valuable right under the said
agreement. Subsequent thereto, the assessee entered into a
cancellation agreement with the owner wherein in lieu of giving up the
rights in the agreement to sell, that the owner paid consideration to
the assessees. On these facts, it was held that the extinguishment of
the rights in the agreement resulted in transfer of capital asset which
was taxable u/s 45 of the Act. We find that, the facts involved in the
case before us is distinguishable as because,the settlement claim of
Rs.18 crores was paid for withdrawing all pending
cases/complains/suits filed against SIL and not for cancellation of any
rights obtained under the AFS.
Oberoi Hotels [P] Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 October, 2023
On
appeal, this Tribunal following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd vs. CIT (supra) held that, the
assessee by giving up its right to purchase the property, resulted in
loss of source of income and thus treated the settlement
compensation as capital receipt. The relevant findings are noted to be
as under:-