CGT v. Kusumben D Mahadevia

122 ITR 38Supreme Court of India1980#14770 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing CGT v. Kusumben D Mahadevia

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…mu & Others, uncertainty of the conditions at the date of valuation prevented any reasonable estimation of prospective profits and dividends". 21.1 He submitted that this legal position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Kusumben Mahadevia (122 ITR 38), CIT v. Executors & Trustees of the Estate of Late Shri Ambalal Sarabhai 170 ITR 144 (SC) and Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1(SC). 22. The Ld. Special Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted a certificate filed which was obtained from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir which is not only vague; but…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…mu & Others, uncertainty of the conditions at the date of valuation prevented any reasonable estimation of prospective profits and dividends". 21.1 He submitted that this legal position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Kusumben Mahadevia (122 ITR 38), CIT v. Executors & Trustees of the Estate of Late Shri Ambalal Sarabhai 170 ITR 144 (SC) and Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1(SC). 22. The Ld. Special Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted a certificate filed which was obtained from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir which is not only vague; but…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…mu & Others, uncertainty of the conditions at the date of valuation prevented any reasonable estimation of prospective profits and dividends". 21.1 He submitted that this legal position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Kusumben Mahadevia (122 ITR 38), CIT v. Executors & Trustees of the Estate of Late Shri Ambalal Sarabhai 170 ITR 144 (SC) and Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1(SC). 22. The Ld. Special Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted a certificate filed which was obtained from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir which is not only vague; but…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…mu & Others, uncertainty of the conditions at the date of valuation prevented any reasonable estimation of prospective profits and dividends". 21.1 He submitted that this legal position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Kusumben Mahadevia (122 ITR 38), CIT v. Executors & Trustees of the Estate of Late Shri Ambalal Sarabhai 170 ITR 144 (SC) and Bharat Hari Singhania & Ors. vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1(SC). 22. The Ld. Special Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted a certificate filed which was obtained from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir which is not only vague; but…

Topcon Singapore Positioning Pte Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, while ITA No

ITA 5030/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Is A Singapore Based Company Which Held 7,49,999 Shares In An Indian Company By The Name Of Topcon Sokkia India Pvt Ltd (Tsipl, In Short) & 1 Share

Section 143(3)

…ore, that we need to consider is as to on what basis the price which would have been charged for sale of these shares can be ascertained. On this aspect, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CGT Vs Kusumben D Mahadevia [(1980) 122 ITR 38 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: ITA Nos. 2 and 5030/Del/2017 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 6 of 8 4. It is clear …… that where the shares in a public limited company are quoted on the stock exchange and there are dealings in them, the price prevailing on the valuation date would represent the value of the sha…

Topcon Singapore Positioning Pte Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, while ITA No

ITA 2/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Us Is A Singapore Based Company Which Held 7,49,999 Shares In An Indian Company By The Name Of Topcon Sokkia India Pvt Ltd (Tsipl, In Short) & 1 Share

Section 143(3)

…ore, that we need to consider is as to on what basis the price which would have been charged for sale of these shares can be ascertained. On this aspect, we find guidance from Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CGT Vs Kusumben D Mahadevia [(1980) 122 ITR 38 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have, inter alia, observed as follows: ITA Nos. 2 and 5030/Del/2017 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 6 of 8 4. It is clear …… that where the shares in a public limited company are quoted on the stock exchange and there are dealings in them, the price prevailing on the valuation date would represent the value of the sha…

CGT v. Kusumben D Mahadevia (122 ITR 38) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax