What is A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT authority for?

The cost of acquisition of leasehold rights can be determined, and it is not conceptually impossible to ascertain such cost for the purpose of computing capital gains.

How many judgments cite A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT?

85 judgments on BharatTax cite A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT (176 ITR 417), spanning 2005 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 10(3), Section 132, Section 14, Section 153A, Section 153C.

A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT (176 ITR 417)

M/S R. S. SHETYE & BROS,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

…ain tax. The former ratio subsequently found affirmed & followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘RK Palshikar (HUF) Vs CIT’ [1988 38 Taxman 166 / 56 CCH 217 ISCC]. On a similar line the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘AR Krishnamurthy & Anrs Vs CIT’ [1989 176 ITR 417 / 57 CCH 170 ISCC], while holding grant of mining lease/licence as capital asset and thus surplus on transfer is exigible to taxation laid out a ratio that, ‘transfer’ in context of provisions of the Act not only include permanent transfer but also a temporary transfer of title to the property in question and lease of mine for any period would fa…

BANDEKAR BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO-DA-GAMA, GOA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

…ain tax. The former ratio subsequently found affirmed & followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘RK Palshikar (HUF) Vs CIT’ [1988 38 Taxman 166 / 56 CCH 217 ISCC]. On a similar line the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘AR Krishnamurthy & Anrs Vs CIT’ [1989 176 ITR 417 / 57 CCH 170 ISCC], while holding grant of mining lease/licence as capital asset and thus surplus on transfer is exigible ITAT-Panaji Page 23 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA No. 038/PAN/2025 AY: 2013-14 to taxation laid out a ratio that, ‘transfer’ in context of provisions of the Act not only include permanent transfer but also…

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2392/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh

Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 1243/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) ITA No. 2392/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Bank of Baroda ACIT-2(1)(1) Baroda Corporate Centre Room No. 561 2nd Floor, C-26, G Block Vs. 5th Floor Bandra Kurla Complex Aayakar Bhavan Bandra East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-40 0020. PAN : AAACB1534F Appellant Respondent : Shri C. Naresh Assessee by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui Revenue by : 09/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 26/08/2025 O R D E R Per O…

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh

Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 1243/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) ITA No. 2392/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Bank of Baroda ACIT-2(1)(1) Baroda Corporate Centre Room No. 561 2nd Floor, C-26, G Block Vs. 5th Floor Bandra Kurla Complex Aayakar Bhavan Bandra East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-40 0020. PAN : AAACB1534F Appellant Respondent : Shri C. Naresh Assessee by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui Revenue by : 09/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 26/08/2025 O R D E R Per O…

BANK OF BARODA ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the appellant are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri C. Naresh

Section 143(3)Section 90(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 1243/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) ITA No. 2392/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Bank of Baroda ACIT-2(1)(1) Baroda Corporate Centre Room No. 561 2nd Floor, C-26, G Block Vs. 5th Floor Bandra Kurla Complex Aayakar Bhavan Bandra East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-40 0020. PAN : AAACB1534F Appellant Respondent : Shri C. Naresh Assessee by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui Revenue by : 09/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 26/08/2025 O R D E R Per O…

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…g of the goodwill, some tangible some intangible. It is contended that a tenancy right is not a capital asset of such a nature that the actual cost on acquisition could not be ascertained as a natural legal corollary. (12) In A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 417 this court held that it cannot be said conceptually that there is no cost of acquisition of grant of the lease. It held that the cost of acquisition of leasehold rights can be determined. In the present case, however, the Department's stand before the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. I…

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…g of the goodwill, some tangible some intangible. It is contended that a tenancy right is not a capital asset of such a nature that the actual cost on acquisition could not be ascertained as a natural legal corollary. (12) In A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 417 this court held that it cannot be said conceptually that there is no cost of acquisition of grant of the lease. It held that the cost of acquisition of leasehold rights can be determined. In the present case, however, the Department's stand before the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. I…

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…g of the goodwill, some tangible some intangible. It is contended that a tenancy right is not a capital asset of such a nature that the actual cost on acquisition could not be ascertained as a natural legal corollary. (12) In A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 417 this court held that it cannot be said conceptually that there is no cost of acquisition of grant of the lease. It held that the cost of acquisition of leasehold rights can be determined. In the present case, however, the Department's stand before the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. I…

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…g of the goodwill, some tangible some intangible. It is contended that a tenancy right is not a capital asset of such a nature that the actual cost on acquisition could not be ascertained as a natural legal corollary. (12) In A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 417 this court held that it cannot be said conceptually that there is no cost of acquisition of grant of the lease. It held that the cost of acquisition of leasehold rights can be determined. In the present case, however, the Department's stand before the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. I…

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…g of the goodwill, some tangible some intangible. It is contended that a tenancy right is not a capital asset of such a nature that the actual cost on acquisition could not be ascertained as a natural legal corollary. (12) In A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 417 this court held that it cannot be said conceptually that there is no cost of acquisition of grant of the lease. It held that the cost of acquisition of leasehold rights can be determined. In the present case, however, the Department's stand before the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. I…

M/S MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 688/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Bleshri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.688/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-2008 M/S.Madras Race Club, The Deputy Commissioner Of Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Central Circle 1(2) Guindy, Chennai Chennai 600 032. Pan: Aaacm 7640R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ation of the lease. Hence, factually as well as legally, the Lease deed dated 20.12.2006 cannot be considered as a sale deed. The reliance placed by the revenue on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.K.Palshikar (HUF) v Commissioner of Income Tax (172 ITR 311) is misplaced and is distinguishable on facts. Thus, the ld.AR prayed that for all the reasons stated above in the order of reassessment dated 24.10.2014 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 requires to be set aside on the ground that reopening is without jurisdiction. 13. Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the Lower authorities. 14. We h…

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

…n question, in our view, amounts to a transfer of capital assets as contemplated under Section 12-B of the said Act." The above decision in Palshikar (supra) was approved in a subsequent judgment i.e. A.R. Krishnamoorthy v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1989) 176 ITR 417 (SC). It is therefore held that no question of law arises; the appeal is consequently dismissed as unmerited.” 29. It is noted that, even in relation to provisions of Section 50C, the prevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to sale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred for a fini…

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

…stion, in our view, amounts to a\ntransfer of capital assets as contemplated under Section 12-B of the said\nAct.\"\nThe above decision in Palshikar (supra) was approved in a subsequent\njudgment i.e. A.R. Krishnamoorthy v. Commissioner of Income Tax,\n(1989) 176 ITR 417 (SC).\nIt is therefore held that no question of law arises; the appeal is\nconsequently dismissed as unmerited.”\n29. It is noted that, even in relation to provisions of Section 50C, the\nprevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to\nsale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred\nfor a f…