Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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>Court rules on tax treatment of capital receipt as business profits under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>JR Kimtee And Son Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, AP</h3> JR Kimtee And Son Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, AP - [1978] 115 ITR 190 Issues Involved:1. Whether the amount of Rs. 93,515 was a revenue receipt liable to tax for the assessment year 1963-64.2. Whether the amount of Rs. 93,515 can be treated as profits and gains of a business under section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Whether the entire amount of Rs. 93,515 was assessable in the assessment year 1963-64, despite the assessee employing the mercantile system of accountancy.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Revenue Receipt vs. Capital ReceiptThe primary question was whether the Rs. 93,515 awarded to the assessee-firm was a revenue receipt liable to tax or a capital receipt. The court noted that determining whether a receipt is capital or income depends on the specific facts of each case. It was highlighted that compensation for the loss of a business itself is generally treated as a capital receipt. The court referenced several precedents, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji and Godrej & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, to illustrate the distinction between compensation for loss of business (capital receipt) and compensation for non-performance of a contract in the ordinary course of business (revenue receipt).The court concluded that since the assessee-firm was formed solely for managing the company and had no other business, the compensation received for the loss of managing agency was a capital receipt. Thus, the amount of Rs. 93,515 awarded to the assessee-firm was determined to be a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt liable to tax.Issue 2: Profits and Gains of Business under Section 28Despite the amount being classified as a capital receipt, the court examined whether it could still be treated as 'profits and gains of business' under section 28(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which states that any compensation received by a managing agent at or in connection with the termination of their managing agency agreement shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business. The court cited Chidambaram Mulraj & Co. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that such compensation, though a capital receipt, is deemed as profits and gains of business by legal fiction.The court rejected the assessee-firm's argument that section 28(ii) was not applicable because the compensation was awarded due to a breach of the agreement with I.T.F. and not directly with the managed company. The court emphasized that what matters is whether the compensation was for the termination of the managing agency agreement, regardless of who paid it. Thus, the amount of Rs. 93,515 was deemed as profits and gains of business and liable to tax.Issue 3: Assessment Year and Mercantile System of AccountancyThe final issue was whether the entire amount of Rs. 93,515 was assessable in the assessment year 1963-64, given that the assessee employed the mercantile system of accountancy. The court examined when the amount could be said to have accrued to the assessee-firm. The court referenced Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons P. Ltd., where it was held that the right to compensation accrued when the managing agency was terminated, not when the amount was actually received.In this case, since the compensation was awarded based on the remuneration the assessee-firm would have received for the years 1955-60, it was concluded that the relevant amounts must be deemed to have accrued during those years. Therefore, the entire amount of Rs. 93,515 could not be assessed in the assessment year 1963-64.Conclusion:1. The amount of Rs. 93,515 was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt liable to tax.2. The amount of Rs. 93,515 was deemed as profits and gains of business under section 28(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus liable to tax.3. The entire amount of Rs. 93,515 was not assessable in the assessment year 1963-64, given the mercantile system of accountancy employed by the assessee-firm.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found