CIT v. Attili N. Rao

252 ITR 880Supreme Court of India2001#4309 most cited

What is CIT v. Attili N. Rao authority for?

Capital gains are computed on the full price realized from the sale of an asset, even if certain dues are deducted from that price by a third party before payment to the assessee. Deductions for such dues are not permissible when calculating capital gains.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Attili N. Rao · 252 ITR 880 · SC · capital gains · full price realized · admissible deductions · immovable property · auction sale · dues deducted

Also reported as

119 Taxmann 1030

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 143(2)Section 148Section 112Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 2(19aa)section 293section 39section 47transferee companyscheme of arrangementtransferor companysection 2(47)full value of considerationgoing concerntransfer of capital assetdemerger

Judgments citing CIT v. Attili N. Rao

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 744/CHNY/2005[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 132Section 148Section 15Section 158BSection 17(1)(iv)

…no merit and the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (227 ITR 802) is no longer valid or applicable in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Attili N Rao (252 ITR 880). In this case the Honourable Supreme Court had held as under: “Reversing the decision of the High Court, that what was sold at the auction was immovable property belonging to the assessee and the price realized therefore belonging to the assessee. From that price the State deducted its dues towards Kist Capital Gains had to be computed on the fu…

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 2197/CHNY/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 132Section 148Section 15Section 158BSection 17(1)(iv)

…no merit and the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (227 ITR 802) is no longer valid or applicable in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Attili N Rao (252 ITR 880). In this case the Honourable Supreme Court had held as under: “Reversing the decision of the High Court, that what was sold at the auction was immovable property belonging to the assessee and the price realized therefore belonging to the assessee. From that price the State deducted its dues towards Kist Capital Gains had to be computed on the fu…

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

…its order had distinguished the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, viz. (i). V.S.M.R 40 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra Nath Gubbala Jagdishchandran Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 240 (SC); and (ii). CIT Vs. Attli N. Rao (2001) 252 ITR 880 (SC). It was observed that in neither of those cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering a situation pertaining to loss of a capital asset on account of a guarantee given for a third party loan. Rather, in both the said cases, the encumbrance was created by the owner of the capital assets for his own benefit and, thus, the respective assessee…

GIJU PURAPADATHIL MATHAI,ERNAKULAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORP WARD 2(1), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 214/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Giju Purapadathil Mathai .......... Appellant 5-B Parambil Thara Corss Road, Ivory Heights Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam 682036 [Pan: Ahopm6606R] Vs. Acit, Corporate Ward- 2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Assessment Year: 2016-17 Giju Purapadathil Mathai .......... Appellant 5-B Parambil Thara Corss Road, Ivory Heights Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam 682036 [PAN: AHOPM6606R] vs. ACIT, Corporate Ward- 2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee by: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CA Revenue by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delh…

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6081/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

…mited are on behalf of the assessee and therefore the loans are not deductible from the value of assets transferred by the assessee. In support of this proposition Ld AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs Attili N Rao reported in 252 ITR 880(SC) wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “5. We are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court were in error. What was sold by the State at the auction was the immovable property that belonged to the assessee. The price that was realised therefrom belonged to the assessee. From out of that price, the State deducted its dues towards 'k…

SIEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6301/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

…mited are on behalf of the assessee and therefore the loans are not deductible from the value of assets transferred by the assessee. In support of this proposition Ld AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs Attili N Rao reported in 252 ITR 880(SC) wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “5. We are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court were in error. What was sold by the State at the auction was the immovable property that belonged to the assessee. The price that was realised therefrom belonged to the assessee. From out of that price, the State deducted its dues towards 'k…

SIEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

ITA 6300/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Taran Deep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR
Section 2Section 2(47)Section 391

…mited are on behalf of the assessee and therefore the loans are not deductible from the value of assets transferred by the assessee. In support of this proposition Ld AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs Attili N Rao reported in 252 ITR 880(SC) wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “5. We are of the view that the Tribunal and the High Court were in error. What was sold by the State at the auction was the immovable property that belonged to the assessee. The price that was realised therefrom belonged to the assessee. From out of that price, the State deducted its dues towards 'k…

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…on Page no NO 1 ACIT Vs Emaar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 20 928/Del/2016 (ITAT Delhi) 2 Add’l CIT vs Glad Investments (P.) Ltd (2006) 102 ITD 227 18 (ITAT Delhi) 3 Badridas Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 34 ITR 10 1 (SC) 4 CIT v. Attilli N. Rao 252 ITR 880 (SC) 26 5 CIT v. Bagyalakshmi and Co. [1965] 55 I'TR 660 (SC) 24 6 CIT v. Patuck (1969) 71 [TR 713 (Bom) 10 7 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) 5 8 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) CIT vs. 5 Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 9 CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu 53 ITR 114(SC) CIT vs. 5 Ahmedbhai Umarbhay & Co. 18 ITR…

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY-VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA-ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.6866/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 Modi Rubber Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 4/7-C, DDA Shopping Centre, New Vs. Circle-17(1) Friends Colony New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACM2062R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, Adv. Ms. Tejasvi Jain, CA Shri Kamal Gupta, AR Respondent by: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 09 01 2024 Date of pronouncement: 08 02 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA-A.…

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…1(1) (2007 ITAT Delhi) /15 SOT 3681: Sunita Devi vs. ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC 610); Rajasthan P 610); Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. (Delhi TAT) (…

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

…1(1) (2007 ITAT Delhi) /15 SOT 3681: Sunita Devi vs. ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); ACIT, Circle 36(1) (2015 ITAT Delhi) (63 taxmann.com 349); Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Attili N Rao (Supreme Court) (252 ITR 880] and Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar (Supreme Court) [5 SCC 610); Rajasthan P 610); Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. (Delhi TAT) (…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(2),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH KRISHNARAO SAPTARSHI,, PUNE

ITA 125/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 50C

…No 5 & 6) as deduction without considering following judicial pronouncements, according to which such amounts are not allowable for deduction for computation of capital gain:- i) V.S.M.R. Jagadish Chandran V. CIT (93 Taxmann 389-SC). ii) CIT V. Attili N. Rao (119 Taxmann 1030 - SC). iii) Smt S. Valliammai V. CIT (6 Taxmann 240 - Madras). iv) Ashok Soi V. CIT (144 Taxmann 383 Delhi). v) Smt Sita Nanda V. CIT (119 Taxmann 227 - Delhi). vi) Sri Kanniah Photo Studio (235 Taxmann 58 - Madras). vii) ACIT Circle-3 V. Mohanbhai Turakhiya (40 Taxmann.com 98 - Ahmedabad Tribunal). viii) Maradia Wires Rods Ltd (9 Taxmann.co…

NEPTUNE POLYMERS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Number 5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 249/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 250

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2015-16 Neptune Polymers Pvt. The ITO, Ltd. 529/10/1 Old Daliya Ward-3(1)(1), Building Opp. Town Hall, Vs Ambawadi, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Ltd. PAN: AAACN9080A (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. Revenue by: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal f…

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 176/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 2(47)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] Assessment Year 2011-12 Ajaybhai I Gogia, ITO, C/o Narendra Glass Ware, Ward-1(2)(5), Ramnik House, M.G. Vs Rajkot (Respondent) Road, Rajkot PAN: ABFPG8977N (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 08-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 18-04-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, arises…

PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Department by Shri Mehul Jain

…detailed submissions and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee with the following observations:- “(i) It is argued that the payment to banks was diversion by overriding title and hence should be allowed. It has been held in CIT vs. Attili N. Rao (2001) [252 ITR 880] (SC), that where the assessee mortgaged his immovable property to state for payment of kist and the Government sold the property for Rs.5.63 lakhs, deducted its due of Rs.1.29 lakhs and the balance of rs.4.34 lakhs was given to the assessee. The assessee contended that the amount realized by the Government adjusted towards its kist was diverted…

GREEN HABITATS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals stand dismissed

ITA 5991/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…onstrued as diversion of income by overriding title. Thereafter learned CIT(A) referred to following case laws to reject the assessee’s claim that no income has arisen :- i) CIT Vs. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein (144 Taxman 720) (Bom) ii) CIT Vs. Attili N. Rao (252 ITR 880) (SC) iii) CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (46 ITR 144) 11. Thereafter learned CIT(A) also rejected the Assessing Officer’s reference that purchaser M/s. Evita Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee were related party. Accordingly, he concluded by directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition on account of amount received through e…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), , GUNTUR vs. POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 319/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.319/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2015-16) The Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Polisetty Somasundaram Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.3-30-17, Guntur Sundaram Colony, Ring Road, Gujjanagulla, Guntur [Pan : Aabcp3168Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Cross Objection No.99/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.319/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S Polisetty Somasundaram Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.3-30-17, Sundaram Colony, Circle-2(1) Ring Road, Gujjanagulla Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aabcp3168Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Cit, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 30.01.2020 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.319/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2015-16) The Asst.Commissioner of Vs. M/s Polisetty Somasundaram Income Tax Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2(1) D.No.3-30-17, Guntur Sundaram Colony, Ring Road, Gujjanagulla, Guntur [PAN : AABCP3168Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Cross Objection No.99/Viz/201…

PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4964/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu Vice Presedent,(As) Shri D. Karunakar Rao & Shri Amit Shukla, Sh. Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarperfect Thread Mills Ltd Vs Dcit, 8(2), Mumbai 201, Millenium Plaza Behind Sakinaka Telephone Exchange, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72 Pan: Aaacp6449E Appellant Respondednt

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 255(4)Section 48

…assessee as its income and was diverted towards discharge of bank's obligation. 3.12 As regards reliance placed by the Cl. T.{A). while rejecting the assessee's claim upon the judgements of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Cl. T. vs. Attili N. Rao (252 ITR 880) and the honourable Allahabad High Court in the case of CL T. vs. Sharad Sharma (305 ITR 24), it is submitted that these judgements are not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. 3.13 In the case of CI.T. vs. Attili N. Rao, the assessee was carrying on abkari business. He mortgaged his immovable property to the Excise Department of Andhr…

ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY vs. G.CHANDRA, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2256/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.V.S.Jayakumar,Advocate
Section 48(1)(i)

…far as the decision was in relation to a claim u/s.54E of the Act. Further, this view of ours that Capital Gains is leviable on the sale of the mortgaged property is supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of :- 7 -: Shri Attili N. Rao reported in 252 ITR 880 (SC). Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee has not received any consideration on account of the sale of the mortgage property as the assessee has steps into the shoes of the lender when the mortgage property was sold and the sale consideration appropriated.” It was a prayer that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to be reversed. 4. I…

ITO, TIRUPPUR vs. SHRI V.S. CHANDRAKUMAR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed and the order of the Ld

ITA 2736/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2736/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 2(47)Section 45Section 47

…in so far as the decision was in relation to a claim u/s.54E of the Act. Further, this view of ours that Capital Gains is leviable on the sale of the mortgaged property is supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Attili N. Rao reported in 252 ITR 880 (SC). Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee has not received any consideration on account of the sale of the mortgage property as the assessee has steps into the shoes of the lender when the mortgage property was sold and the sale consideration appropriated. ITA No.2736/Chny/2016 & CO No.178/Chny/2016 :- 7 -: 9. In the result, the appeal…

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2