A.K. Krishnamurthy & A.R. Rajagopal v. CIT

133 ITR 922Reported decision1982#22401 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Judgments citing A.K. Krishnamurthy & A.R. Rajagopal v. CIT

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 338/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

…esent case. Hence for the reasons discussed above and in light of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra), as well as the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of A.K. Krishnamurthy & A.R. Rajagopal v. CIT reported in [1982] 133 ITR 922 (Mad-HC), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court held as under: 1. The assessee, a body of individuals, filed a return for the assessment year 1971-72, admitting a total income of Rs. 43,953 from business and other sources. During the curse of the assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed that the assessee had purchased an extent of 11.23 acres of land f…

Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Chengalput vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 870/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

…present case. Hence for the reasons discussed above and in light of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra), as well as the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of A.K. Krishnamurthy & A.R. Rajagopal v. CIT reported in [1982] 133 ITR 922 (Mad-HC), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: 1. The assessee, a body of individuals, filed a return for the assessment year 1971-72, admitting a total income of Rs. 43,953 from business and other sources. During the curse of the assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed that the assessee had purchased an extent of 11.23 acres of land fo…

M/S. Stp Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 749/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, Kolkata M/S Stp Limited C/O. G.P. Agarwal & Associates, 7A, Kiran Shankar Ray Road, 2Nd Floor, Kol-1. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs6339M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Kothari, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…his own. Any kind of property held by an assessee would come within the definition of 'capital asset'. From the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.Gasper v. CIT [1991] 192 ITR 382 and the Madras High Court in A.R.Krishnamurthy & A.R. Rajagopalan v. CIT[1982] 133 ITR 922/[1981] 6 Taxman 289, it is clear that transfer by way of lease is treated as transfer of a capital asset, on the principle that the lease creates an interest in the land and, therefore, to that extent, it extinguishes the right of the transferor. Therefore, when the assessee transfers his leasehold rights in the land in his occupation, by way of…