9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the receipt of Rs. 3,75,000 by the assessee was not a revenue receipt and in deleting the addition thereof in the hands of the assessee ?" The assessment year involved is 1969-70. The assessee was a partner in the partnership known as Nayab Biri Factory, Moradabad, created by a deed of partnership which was executed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 26 (All) held the amount in question a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. On the application of the Department, this reference has come up to this court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 that it cannot be said as a general rule that what is determinative of the nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital receipt. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 261 and the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Mahinderpal Bhasin [1979] 117 ITR 26, we answer the question, referred to us, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There shall be no order as to costs. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
