THE INDRA COMPANY LIMITED(AS SAUMYA TRADE & FISCAL SERVICES P. LTD. MERGED INTO THE INDRA CO. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(3),, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the consideration for the transfer of a capital asset is what the transferor receives, not its market value. Therefore, the full value of consideration received should be used for computing capital gains/loss, and indexation should be allowed on the accepted cost of acquisition.
What were the facts?
The assessee sold shares of Shree Rama Newsprint Ltd. for Rs. 2,529, claiming a long-term capital loss of Rs. 5,98,62,950. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this loss, finding the sale price illogical compared to the market price and the acquisition cost. The AO suspected collusive transactions to create losses for set-off.
What were the issues?
Whether the 'full value of consideration' under Section 48 refers to the actual amount received or the market value, and whether indexation should be allowed on the cost of acquisition when computing capital loss.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.82 citing66 ITR 622 · 1967 · SC
- CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.51 citing87 ITR 407 · 1973 · SC · Read judgment
- Arjun Malhotra v. CIT15 citing403 ITR 354 · 2018 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SONJOY SARMA & SRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 29-May-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2016-17 dated Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29.05.2025 Bidhan (P.S.)
More judgments on Section 48
- Hansaben Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2762/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Mukesh Mishra, Thane vs ACIT, Circle 1, ThaneITA 5853/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Banwari, Bhiwadi vs ITO, BhiwadiITA 1710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Reshma Dilip Ramrakhyani, Gandhidham vs ITO Ward 2 Gandhidham, GandhidhamITA 895/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026