Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Taxability of Rs. 35 lakhs from Consent Decree as business income upheld by High Court</h1> <h3>Ramesh Babulal Shah S/o. Babulal K. Shah And Others Versus Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> The High Court held that the receipt of Rs. 35 lakhs by the assessee pursuant to a Consent Decree from the Bombay High Court was correctly treated as ... Nature of amount received in pursuance of Consent decree by HC – Purchase of land – Business income or Capital gain - Land was purchased but possession was not given to the assessee - During the pendency of the proceedings, consent decree was passed in the suit itself and in pursuance of the same ₹ 35,00,000/- was paid to the Assessee during the assessment year under consideration - The argument was that the agricultural land was agreed to be purchased and that is how the deal was struck, however, on payment of earnest money possession was never handed over. Thus, it is a capital investment in the property - tribunal found the transaction of purchase of land was in the nature of an adventure in trade and not as income in the nature of capital gains – Held that:- Authorities below rightly treated this sum as a receipt falling under Section 28(iv) of the I. T. Act - The Tribunal having clearly held that the land was in Urban Agglomeration, non agricultural user of the land was permissible - The land falls within the prescribed area of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and a plan had also been sanctioned for the proposed housing scheme under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - The subsequent conduct of the Assessee is consistent with the intent in acquiring the rights in the property, then all the more the ITO, as also the Commissioner and equally the Tribunal have not committed any error in holding that this was a sum or income chargeable to tax u/s 28(iv) of the I. T. Act – no substantial question of law arises for consideration - Decided against Assessee. Issues:1. Taxability of receipt of Rs. 35 lakhs by the assessee in pursuance of the Consent Decree of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as business income.Analysis:The High Court of Bombay was approached for an opinion on the taxability of Rs. 35 lakhs received by the assessee in pursuance of a Consent Decree. The Tribunal had held that the transaction of purchasing land was an adventure in trade, not capital gains. The Tribunal initially referred six questions of law to the Court, but later confined the reference to the single question mentioned above. The assessee's counsel argued that a question of law did arise, emphasizing the circumstances of the case where the assessee entered into an agreement for land purchase, faced legal disputes, and eventually received the amount under the consent decree. The Income Tax Officer treated the amount as business income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the Commissioner and the Tribunal based on factual findings that the assessee engaged in a trade venture. The High Court noted that the legal tests applied were well-established, and the issue was the applicability of these tests rather than a question of law. The Court found no error in the lower authorities' decision to tax the amount as business income, considering the land's location and the assessee's conduct in acquiring the property rights.In conclusion, the High Court held that the reference was misconceived as no question of law arose from the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court found that the lower authorities correctly treated the amount of Rs. 35 lakhs as income chargeable to tax under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the reference was disposed of without the need for further opinion or answer from the Court.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found