1. CIT v. Duncan Brothers

209 ITR 44High Court#9522 most cited

What is 1. CIT v. Duncan Brothers authority for?

The actual cost of acquisition for capital gains purposes cannot be the fair market value (FMV) as provided under Section 55(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act. The FMV of an asset on a specified date, if chosen by the assessee, determines the cost of acquisition, not the other way around.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Duncan Brothers · section 55(2)(b) · section 55 · fair market value · actual cost of acquisition · long term capital gain · cost of acquisition · FMV

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 55fair market valuelong term capital gaintransferdocumentinterest

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Duncan Brothers

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4268/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 48Section 48(1)

…as on 1st April, 1981 would be Rs.10 per share. This is so because, the actual cost of acquisition cannot be the FMV as provided under section 55(2)(b) of the Act. In this regard, we refer to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Duncan Brothers reported in 209 ITR 44 (Cal.) 2. Sushiladevi R Somani reported in 197 ITD 316 (Mum) 21. Thus, on overall consideration of facts and circumstances of the case in the light of ratio laid down in the judicial precedents cited before us, we are of the considered view that the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue is not justiciable. Accordingly, we upho…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3776/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 48Section 48(1)

…as on 1st April, 1981 would be Rs.10 per share. This is so because, the actual cost of acquisition cannot be the FMV as provided under section 55(2)(b) of the Act. In this regard, we refer to the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Duncan Brothers reported in 209 ITR 44 (Cal.) 2. Sushiladevi R Somani reported in 197 ITD 316 (Mum) 21. Thus, on overall consideration of facts and circumstances of the case in the light of ratio laid down in the judicial precedents cited before us, we are of the considered view that the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue is not justiciable. Accordingly, we upho…

Avtar Singh Dheeran, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 66(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Avtar Singh Dheeran, Vs Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward-66(5), G-26/124, Sector-7, New Delhi. Rohini, New Delhi. Pan: Aaipd8887G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

…et value of the property has to be adopted at the option of the assessee and not at the option of the AO. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) Bawa Shiv Charan Singh vs. CIT, reported in 149 ITR 29; & ii) Madras Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 209 ITR 44. 9. He accordingly submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO especially when the assessee has proved beyond doubt that it was a three storied building and, therefore, the AO should have allowed indexed cost of acquisition for the three storied building as per the valuation report filed by the assessee.…

Mr. Jaiprakash A. Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 22 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1505/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…(Kar.), Ranchodbhai B. Patel vs CIT 81 ITR 446 (Guj.), CIT vs M. Mr. Jaiprakash A. Mishra 9 Rammaiya Reddy 158 ITR 611 (Kar.), CIT vs Smt. M. Subaida Beebi 160 ITR 557 (Ker.), CIT vs Steel Group Ltd. 131 ITR 234 (Cal.), CIT vs Duncan Brothers & Company Ltd. 209 ITR 44 (Cal.), Arun Suuny vs DCIT (2009) 184 taxman 498 (Ker.) further supports the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Manjula J. Shah (Supra), we affirm the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 7.1 Facts bein…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2756/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…own by the Bombay High Court. It is seen from the notice issued by your honour that no cogent material has been referred to establish that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of Duncan Brothers reported in (209 ITR 44) it has been categorically held that an order of the Commissioner (u/s. 263 of the Act) not bringing any cogent material on record and based only on hypothesis is unsustainable. In order to invoke section 263, two conditions are to be satisfied simultaneously i.e. the order passed by the AO has to be erroneous the order so passed should be prejud…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2755/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…own by the Bombay High Court. It is seen from the notice issued by your honour that no cogent material has been referred to establish that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of Duncan Brothers reported in (209 ITR 44) it has been categorically held that an order of the Commissioner (u/s. 263 of the Act) not bringing any cogent material on record and based only on hypothesis is unsustainable. In order to invoke section 263, two conditions are to be satisfied simultaneously i.e. the order passed by the AO has to be erroneous the order so passed should be prejud…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2754/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…own by the Bombay High Court. It is seen from the notice issued by your honour that no cogent material has been referred to establish that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of Duncan Brothers reported in (209 ITR 44) it has been categorically held that an order of the Commissioner (u/s. 263 of the Act) not bringing any cogent material on record and based only on hypothesis is unsustainable. In order to invoke section 263, two conditions are to be satisfied simultaneously i.e. the order passed by the AO has to be erroneous the order so passed should be prejud…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…own by the Bombay High Court. It is seen from the notice issued by your honour that no cogent material has been referred to establish that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of Duncan Brothers reported in (209 ITR 44) it has been categorically held that an order of the Commissioner (u/s. 263 of the Act) not bringing any cogent material on record and based only on hypothesis is unsustainable. In order to invoke section 263, two conditions are to be satisfied simultaneously i.e. the order passed by the AO has to be erroneous the order so passed should be prejud…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2752/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…own by the Bombay High Court. It is seen from the notice issued by your honour that no cogent material has been referred to establish that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of Duncan Brothers reported in (209 ITR 44) it has been categorically held that an order of the Commissioner (u/s. 263 of the Act) not bringing any cogent material on record and based only on hypothesis is unsustainable. In order to invoke section 263, two conditions are to be satisfied simultaneously i.e. the order passed by the AO has to be erroneous the order so passed should be prejud…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2751/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…own by the Bombay High Court. It is seen from the notice issued by your honour that no cogent material has been referred to establish that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of Duncan Brothers reported in (209 ITR 44) it has been categorically held that an order of the Commissioner (u/s. 263 of the Act) not bringing any cogent material on record and based only on hypothesis is unsustainable. In order to invoke section 263, two conditions are to be satisfied simultaneously i.e. the order passed by the AO has to be erroneous the order so passed should be prejud…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2750/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…own by the Bombay High Court. It is seen from the notice issued by your honour that no cogent material has been referred to establish that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of Duncan Brothers reported in (209 ITR 44) it has been categorically held that an order of the Commissioner (u/s. 263 of the Act) not bringing any cogent material on record and based only on hypothesis is unsustainable. In order to invoke section 263, two conditions are to be satisfied simultaneously i.e. the order passed by the AO has to be erroneous the order so passed should be prejud…

1. CIT v. Duncan Brothers (209 ITR 44) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax