Sec. 10(3)

Section 4, Sec. 10(3), Sec. 2(4), Section 32, Section 55

Bombay H.C : Where under master agreement between Coca Cola and Parle group, assessee-subsidiary was to be formed for bottling soft drinks for coca cola and as a result of breach of contract by Coca Cola assessee’s fundamental right for starting bottling business was taken away, compensation received by assessee from Coca Cola would be treated as capital receipt

High Court Of Bombay CIT-8, Mumbai vs. Parle Soft Drinks (Bangalore (P.) Ltd.) Assessment year 1998-99 Section : 4, 2(4),

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 10(3), Section 10, Section 45

Madras H.C: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum agreed to be paid to the appellant as sub-lessee by the lessee of the premises for the failure to provide alternate accommodation is taxable under the head capital gains, which is prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 1995 ?

High Court Of Madras Beardsell Ltd. vs. JCIT Section 10(3), 45 Asst. Year 1994-95 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja,

Sec. 10(3), Section 4, Section 45, Section 48

Calcutta H.C : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case and according to the proper view of the law, the sum of Rs. 1.75 crores received by the assessee for entering into a restrictive covenant of not entering into a competing business with—United Breweries group for a period of five years was receipt by the assessee in the nature of a capital receipt or whether it was a revenue receipt ?

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. A.S. Wardekar Sections 4, 10(3), 45, 48 Asst. Year 1989-90 D.K. Seth & Soumitra

Sec. 10(3), Section 4

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 97,94,949 being the amount received under the arbitration award for the work done in connection with the Feeder Canals for the Farakka Barrage Project during the period from 1st Jan., 1967, to 30th Sept., 1969, was not a revenue receipt but only a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, Sh. J.H. Tarapore, and, therefore, exempt from tax ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. J.H. Tarapore (Died) By T.Raghavan Sections 4, 10(3) Asst. Year 1974-75 V.S. Sirpurkar &

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security