48(1) of the Act. (d). Gopee Nath Paul & Sons. v. Dy. CIT

198 CTR 116High Court2005#23378 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 48 Section 120(4)(b)Section 127 Section 144C(13)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 48 transfer company business interest

Judgments citing 48(1) of the Act. (d). Gopee Nath Paul & Sons. v. Dy. CIT

Zarah Rafique Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

…xpenses have an intimate connection with the transfer, they have to be allowed under section. The expression 'in connection with such transfer' is wider than the expression 'for the transfer Gopee Nath Paul & Sons v. Dy. CIT [2005] 147 Taxman 629/278 ITR 240/198 CTR 116 (Cal.) On similar facts that of the appellant, in the following ITAT cases have upheld contention of the appellant. Further, the appellant to support its contention relied on the decision of ITAT in case of Mrs. Usharani Raghunathan, Shri Raghunathan, Smt. Amudha 9 ITA 5159/Mum/2025 Zarah Rafique Malik Rajendran v. CIT [Ι.Τ.Λ. Νos. 493,494 and…

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

…0 (Delhi Tribunal) The Tribunal in the aforesaid case, had held that the expenditure paid by the assessee to confirming parties and occupant on sale of property was an allowable expenditure u/s 48(1) of the Act. (d). Gopee Nath Paul & Sons Vs. Dy. CIT (2005) 198 CTR 116 (Calcutta). The Hon’ble High Court had held that the payments to discharge encumbrances in order to enable the sale of the asset was a deductible expenditure. It was observed that any amount the payment of which is absolutely necessary to affect the transfer will be an expenditure covered by clause (i) of Section 48(1). In other words, if, withou…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Arka Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.58/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd Ward 1 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafca7411H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 23/11/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 1 Day By The Revenue In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. We Have Heard The Learned Dr As Well As The Learned Ar On The Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Objected For Condonation Of Delay Of One Day In Filing

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 148Section 45

…GF Constructions (P) Ltd (ITA No.1734/Del/2016) ITAT Delhi. 16) Dinesh Vazi Rani – 445 ITR 110 (Bom) 17) Kaushalya Devi (Deceased) through legal representative vs. CIT (4504ITR 136) (Del.) 18) CIT vs. Shakuntla Kantilal (190 ITR 56) (Bom.) 19) Gopeenath Paul (198 CTR 116)(Cal.) 20) CIT vs. Abrar Alvi (247 ITR 312) 21) Chincholi Guru Raja Char Venkatesh (149 Taxmann.com 90 (Kar.) 22) N. Raja Rajan – 120 Taxmann.com 402 (Mad) 23) Income Tax Officer vs. Taj Services (P) Ltd (143 TTJ 70) (Mum.) 24) CIT vs.Daksha Ramlal (197 ITR 123) (Guj.) 7. We have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material avail…