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>Compensation for Loss of Income ruled as Capital Receipt not Taxable</h1> <h3>The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (1), Raipur (C.G.) Versus M/s. Risabh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the compensation received from Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. was a capital receipt due to the loss of the source ... Characterization of receipts - nature of receipts - compensation received as consideration for restrictive covenant to not to do business in the same line for a prescribed period - revenue receipts or capital receipts - HELD THAT:- The amount of compensation received by the assessee company from LIPL during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2010-11 [2018 (11) TMI 323 - ITAT RAIPUR] being in nature of a “capital receipt” was not exigible to tax. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) we uphold the same. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Whether the compensation received from Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. (LIPL) is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt.2. Whether the compensation was for a restrictive covenant or for specific services rendered.3. Whether the compensation resulted in the loss of the source of income.4. The correctness of the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition made by the AO.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of Compensation Received:The primary issue is whether the compensation received by the assessee from LIPL is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt. The assessee claimed the compensation as a capital receipt due to the termination of its business activity, resulting in the 'loss of source of income.' The Assessing Officer (AO) re-characterized this compensation as a revenue receipt and brought it to tax. The CIT(A) concurred with the assessee's claim, stating that the compensation was for the loss of the source of income and thus a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing its earlier decision in the assessee's case for AY 2011-12, which had attained finality.2. Compensation for Restrictive Covenant vs. Specific Services:The Revenue contended that the compensation was for specific services and acts performed by the assessee, not for a restrictive covenant. The CIT(A) found that the compensation was indeed for the termination of the MOU, which led to the loss of the source of income. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the compensation was for the impairment or sterilization of the profit-making structure, thus being a capital receipt.3. Loss of Source of Income:The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both observed that the compensation was for the loss of the source of income. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Oberoi Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that compensation for the loss of a source of income is a capital receipt. The Tribunal found that the compensation received by the assessee was for the sterilization of its profit-making apparatus, thus qualifying as a capital receipt.4. Correctness of the CIT(A)'s Order:The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that it was erroneous in law and on facts. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order. The Tribunal noted that the issue was already settled in the assessee's favor in the earlier assessment year, and the facts of the present case were not distinguishable.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that the compensation received by the assessee from LIPL was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2011-12, which had attained finality.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found