Ambat Echukutty Menon v. CIT (1

111 ITR 880High Court1978#18716 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 48

Judgments citing Ambat Echukutty Menon v. CIT (1

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

…harge under the capital gains in respect of the sale of the properties and, therefore, he deleted the capitals gains of Rs. 68,400 as computed by the ITO. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Kerala High Court in Ambat Echukutty Menon vs. CIT (1 (1978) 111 ITR 880 (Ker) , and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. V. Indira (1979) 119 ITR 837 (Mad) held that clearing of the mortgage debt could neither be treated as cost of acquisition nor as an cost of improvement made by the assessee. The 44 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra Nath Gubbala Tribunal, therefore, held that the deducti…

Devendra Kumar Shroff, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(2), Kolkata

ITA 158/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: "ीजे. सुधाकररे"डी, लेखासद"यएवं/And"ीऐ. ट". वक","यायीकसद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ation for discharge of mortgage as deduction under section 48(1)(a)(z) of the Act from the sale consideration because such deduction was impermissible in the light of earlier Hon’bleKerala High Court’s decision in the case of AmbatEchukuttyMenonVs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 880 and the Hon’bleSupreme Court decision in the case of CITv. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 622. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court observed that the Tribunal appeared to have been proceeding in wholly 9 Devendra Kumar Shroff.AY- 2008-09 unnecessary direction of statutory provisions relating to the deduction from the full value of the consi…

Sh. Baljeet Singh Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4209/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Dandey, Sr.DR

Section 48

…he asset. The sum paid by the assessee was on account of compensation due to cancellation of agreement by the assessee himself which was not at all deductible from the capital gain. The AO relied on the case of 3 AY: 2009-10 Ambat Echkutty Menon vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 880 (Ker) wherein the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that sum spent to clear encumbrance is not cost of improvement. The AO also relied on the case of CIT Vs Roshanbabu Mohammad Hussein Merchant (2005) 275 ITR 231 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that expenditure incurred by an assessee to remove an encumbrance created by…

ITO, Chennai vs. Sri V.Pitchamuthu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 78/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.78/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Shri V. Pitchamuthu, No.35, 2Nd Avenue, Indira Nagar, Business Ward Iv(3), V. Chennai. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Ancpp 0501 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

…e judgment of Apex Court in R.M. Arunachalam (supra). The Apex Court has observed as follows:- “While we are affirming the impugned judgment of the High Court, we are unable to endorse the view of the Kerala High Court in Ambat Echukutty Menon v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 880 to which reference has been made by the High Court in the impugned judgment. In that case, the assessee, as one of the heirs, had inherited property from the previous owner who had mortgaged the same during his lifetime and after his death the heirs, including the assessee, had discharged the mortgage created by the deceased. The said property wa…