COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. D.P. SANDU BROS. CHEMBUR (P) LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2335/2003Supreme Court[2005] 1 S.C.R. 89531 January 2005Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER COMMISSIONER OF8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The respondent-assessee, D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd., entered into a 50-year lease agreement in 1959. In March 1986, the assessee prematurely surrendered its tenancy rights to the lessor for a consideration of Rs. 35 lakhs. The assessee credited this amount to its reserve and surplus account. The Assessing Officer disallowed this, holding the amount taxable as 'income from other sources' under Section 10(3) read with Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held the assessee liable for capital gains, allowing a cost of acquisition of Rs. 7 lakhs. Both parties appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering an amendment to Section 55(2) and the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Srinivasa Setty, held that since the cost of acquisition was unascertainable, capital gains could not be computed under Section 48 and thus were not exigible to tax. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Court held that while a tenancy right is a capital asset and its surrender is a capital receipt, the inability to compute the cost of acquisition under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prevents it from being taxed as capital gains. The Court noted that although conceptually a tenancy right might have an ascertainable cost of acquisition, in this specific case, the Revenue's stand before the High Court was that the cost was incapable of being ascertained. Based on this stand, the High Court's decision was upheld. Furthermore, the Court ruled that if income cannot be taxed under Section 45, it cannot be taxed under any other head, including the residuary head of 'income from other sources' under Section 56. The heads of income are mutually exclusive, and income falling under a specific head must be taxed accordingly. Therefore, the amount received could not be taxed under Section 10(3) read with Section 56 as casual or non-recurring income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amount received by the assessee on surrender of tenancy rights is chargeable to capital gains tax under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 1987-88? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that since the cost of acquisition of the leasehold rights was unascertainable, capital gains could not be computed as per Section 48, and therefore, the income was not exigible to tax. The Tribunal had accepted this view. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the surrender value of tenancy rights was chargeable to capital gains under Section 45. Alternatively, even if not chargeable under Section 45, it was liable to be taxed as 'income from other sources' under Section 10(3) read with Section 56 of the Act. The Revenue's stand before the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(3),Section 14,Section 45,Section 48,Section 55(2),Section 56

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

>- _/ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. MUMBAI A v. ~ D.P. SAN DU BROS. CHEMBUR (P) LTD. JANUARY 3 I, 2005 · .. [RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND CK TEAKKER, JJ.] B Income Tax Act, 1961 (Pi"ior to 1995 Amendment)-Sections !0(3), 14, 45 and 56-Capital Gains Tax - Liability-On the amount received against surrender of tenancy rights-Stand of Revenue before Court that the .cost of c acquisition was incapable of being ascertained-Liability negated by Courts below-On appeal, held: Though cost of acquisition of tenancy right is ascertainable assessee not liable to tax in view of the stand of Revenue-The income being capital receipt and assessable only under Item E of Section 14, cannot be taxed under Section I 0(3) either-~( the income is included in any one of the heads, it cannot be brought to tax under the residuary provisions D ... of Section 56 . _, Respondent-assessee entered into lease agreement with lessor for 50 years. He prematurely surrendered the tenancy rights to the lessor and in lieu of that received an amount. The amount was credited to reserve E and surplus account in the Assessee's return for the assessment year 1987- 88; But the same was disallowed by R

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(3)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(3) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →