A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT

176 ITR 417Supreme Court of India1989#1346 most cited

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

The cost of acquiring leasehold rights can be determined, and the transfer of such rights, including mining leases, constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, making any surplus on such transfer taxable as capital gains.

85

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT · 176 ITR 417 · cost of acquisition of leasehold rights · capital asset · transfer of capital asset · taxation of surplus on transfer · mining lease · lease of land · right in rem

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(3)Section 132Section 14Section 153ASection 153CSection 45Section 48
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 49section 46section 55transfer of capital assetdoctrine of mergergoing concernfresh tangible materialsection 48section 45interest on securitiescolourable device

Judgments citing A. R. Krishnamurthy v. CIT

Tril Infopark Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 699/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.699/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Dr. S. Moharana, CIT
Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…uring the course of hearing. In Rane Brake Linings Ltd. (supra), the Madras High Court found that lease for 99 years is as much as alienation as a sale. The Madras High Court placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Palshikar (HUF) v. CIT reported in 172 ITR 311 and judgment of Madras High Court in Archaka Sundara Raju Dikshatulu v. Archaka Seshadri Dikshatulu (1928) 54 MLJ 76. The assessment year under consideration before the Madras High Court in Rane Brake Linings Ltd. was 1994-95. We find that that “transfer” is defined in Section 2(47) of the Act. In fact, Section 2(47) is an inclusive definitio…

Commissioner of Income Tax - VIII, New Delhi vs. Gulab Sundri Bapna

Appeal is disposed of

ITA-198/2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

…at tenancy right gets acquired with effect from a particular date and it would be possible that it was acquired at a cost and this was a question of fact. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in A.R. Krishnamurthy & Anr. Vs. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 417 (SC), wherein it has been held that it cannot be said conceptually that there would be no cost of acquisition for grant of lease and cost of acquisition of lease hold rights could be determined. Thus, the Supreme Court in categorical terms has held that the judgment in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty’s case (supra) would not be applicable…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Gulab Sundri Bapna

Appeal is disposed of

ITA - 198 / 2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

…at tenancy right gets acquired with effect from a particular date and it would be possible that it was acquired at a cost and this was a question of fact. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in A.R. Krishnamurthy & Anr. Vs. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 417 (SC), wherein it has been held that it cannot be said conceptually that there would be no cost of acquisition for grant of lease and cost of acquisition of lease hold rights could be determined. Thus, the Supreme Court in categorical terms has held that the judgment in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty’s case (supra) would not be applicable…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Appeal is disposed of

ITA/198/2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

…at tenancy right gets acquired with effect from a particular date and it would be possible that it was acquired at a cost and this was a question of fact. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in A.R. Krishnamurthy & Anr. Vs. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 417 (SC), wherein it has been held that it cannot be said conceptually that there would be no cost of acquisition for grant of lease and cost of acquisition of lease hold rights could be determined. Thus, the Supreme Court in categorical terms has held that the judgment in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty’s case (supra) would not be applicable…

Commnr. of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. D.P. Sandu Bros Chembur (P) Ltd

C.A. No.-002335-002335 - 2003Supreme Court31 Jan 2005
For Respondent: D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd
Section 10(3)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45Section 48Section 55(2)Section 56

…ary. We agree. A tenancy right is acquired with reference to a particular date. It is also possible that it may be acquired at a cost. It is ultimately a question of fact. In A.R. Krishnamurthy and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1989) 176 ITR 417 this Court held that it cannot be said conceptually that there is no cost of acquisition of the 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…