| COURT: | Delhi High Court |
| CORAM: | S. Muralidhar J, Vibhu Bakhru J |
| SECTION(S): | 10(3), 4, 45 |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | capital gains, capital vs. revenue receipt, casual income |
| COUNSEL: | Sanjiv Sabharwal |
| DATE: | April 28, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | June 4, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 1993-94, 1994-95 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| Entire law on concept of "revenue receipt", "capital receipt" and "casual income" explained in the context of taxability of compensation received for cancellation of a sale deed of immovable property. If the AO claims that the receipt is a capital gain, he cannot change his stand to contend that it is a revenue receipt | |
The sum of Rs.20 lakhs received by the Assessees was in the context of the cancellation of the sale certificate and the sale deed executed in their favour in relation to an immovable property and neither Assessee was dealing in immovable property as part of his business. While it could if at all be said to be in the nature of a capital receipt, what is relevant for the present case is that the Revenue has been unable to make out a case for treating the said receipt as of a casual and non-recurring nature that could be brought to tax under Section 10(3) read with Section 56 of the Act. Following the decision in Cadell Weaving Mill (supra), there can be no manner of doubt that what is in the nature of capital receipt, cannot be sought to be brought to tax by resorting to Section 10(3) read with Section 56 of the Act
Recent Comments