The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai v. M/S.basf India Limited
High Court
12 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai v. M/S.basf India Limited
Date of order
12 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai v. M/S.basf India Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1125 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.BASF India Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul K. Jasani i/by T. Pooran & Co. for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 12[th] July, 2011.
1.In the present case, the assessee had received Rs.7.016 crores on transfer of textile dyes business in two parts, namely, receipt on assignment of the marketing rights at Rs.5.010 crores and receipt of non-compete fees at
Rs.2.006 crores. The Tribunal held that the above receipts were capital receipts not liable to tax. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that as far as question of receipt of Rs.2.006 crores is concerned, the issue is squarely covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Guffic Chem P.
Limited V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2011) 332 ITR 602
(S.C.).
3.
3.As regards the receipt of Rs.5.010 crores is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the said amount was received by the assessee for assigning of the textile dyes business which amounted to loss of source of income and, therefore, it would partake the character of capital receipt.
4.We see no infirmity in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.A. Sayed, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.