https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291284 The article explains that a Supreme Court ruling binds only on the issue actually decided, so the decision in P. Mariappa Gounder did not determine whether mesne profits were capital or revenue receipts. It then states that mesne profits awarded for wrongful possession and deprivation of use and occupation of immovable property are compensation in nature and, on the facts discussed, were treated as capital receipts not chargeable to tax. Interest awarded up to the date of the decree was also treated as part of that compensation and not as taxable income to that extent. The discussion relies on the view favourable to the assessee where no binding jurisdictional authority existed. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2020 14:55:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291284 The article explains that a Supreme Court ruling binds only on the issue actually decided, so the decision in P. Mariappa Gounder did not determine whether mesne profits were capital or revenue receipts. It then states that mesne profits awarded for wrongful possession and deprivation of use and occupation of immovable property are compensation in nature and, on the facts discussed, were treated as capital receipts not chargeable to tax. Interest awarded up to the date of the decree was also treated as part of that compensation and not as taxable income to that extent. The discussion relies on the view favourable to the assessee where no binding jurisdictional authority existed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291284