CIT v. Attili N. Rao

252 ITR 880Supreme Court of India2001#4249 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 366,339 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

ITO, Chennai vs. B.Kailasam, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1740/CHNY/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1740/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 & C.O. No. 166/Chny/2013 [In I.T.A. No. 1740/Chny/2013] The Income Tax Officer, Late Shri B. Kailasam Non-Corporate Ward 20(5), Represented By L/H Smt. Geetha Vs. Chennai 34. Kailasam, Flat No. 2A, Vinayaga Apartments, No. 34, Bhakthavachalam Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 4. [Pan:Aacpk6092Q] (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Vi, Chennai Dated 22.02.2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised Two Effective Grounds Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Long Term Capital Gains At ₹.1.68 Crores & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143

…ng the submissions of the assessee as well as by following various case law, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the ground raised by the assessee 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. By relying upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Attilli N Rao 252 ITR 880 (SC), the ld. 4 I.T.A. No.1740/Chny/13 & C.O. No. 166/Chny/13 DR has submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue and pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be set aside. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard both sides, perus…

Abdul Aziz Lokhandwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 7658/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Abdul Aziz Lokhandwala, The Ito 5 (1) (1), B-2102, Lady Ratan Tower, Aaykar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Dainik Shivner Road, Room No. 570, Gandhi Nagar, Worli, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabpl6611P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 154Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Abdul Aziz Lokhandwala, The ITO 5 (1) (1), B-2102, Lady Ratan Tower, Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Floor, Dainik Shivner Road, Room No. 570, Gandhi Nagar, Worli, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABPL6611P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR) Date of Hearing: 26/10/2017 Date of Pronouncement: 31/10/2017 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appeals have been filed b…

Geetha Subramanian, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

ITA 428/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishnan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 13(2)

…an for a company in which they were directors. As per ld. Assessing Officer this was only self created mortgage and self created mortgage was not a charge on the property. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Attili N. Rao 252 ITR 880. Ld. Assessing Officer declined to consider the claim of the assessee. He recomputed capital gains of the assessee and total capital gains worked out "37,57,471/- and assessee’s individual share "18,78,735/. 4. Aggrieved, the assessees moved in appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Contention of the assessees was that the…

S.Venkatasubramanian, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

ITA 427/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishnan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 13(2)

…an for a company in which they were directors. As per ld. Assessing Officer this was only self created mortgage and self created mortgage was not a charge on the property. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Attili N. Rao 252 ITR 880. Ld. Assessing Officer declined to consider the claim of the assessee. He recomputed capital gains of the assessee and total capital gains worked out "37,57,471/- and assessee’s individual share "18,78,735/. 4. Aggrieved, the assessees moved in appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Contention of the assessees was that the…

P.Sukumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Salem

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

ITA 442/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.442/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri P. Sukumar, Bangalore Auto Diesel Works, The Income Tax Officer, Omalur Main Road, V. Ward – I(1), Salem – 636 004. Salem. Pan : Agups 0835 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Durai Pandian, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ड.एस. सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.442/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri P. Sukumar, Bangalore Auto Diesel Works, The Income Tax Officer, Omalur Main Road, v. Ward – I(1), Salem – 636 004. Salem. PAN : AGUPS 0835 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri…

Cyfast Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

Section 50B

…ll value of consideration of the capital asset with the fair market value of the asset, it is impermissible to deviate from the sale price actually received. 16.11. Now we espouse the other judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in CIT Vs.Attili N.Rao [(2001) 252 ITR 880 (SC)] which has been claimed as trump card of the Revenue’s case on this issue. In that case the assessee carried on abkari business. In the course of financial year 1970-71 the assessee mortgaged to the Excise Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh the immovable property belonging to him at Waltair. He did so to provide security for the amoun…

M/S. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…jrapani Naidu 242 ITR 560. The High Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arunachalam Vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 222. The Apex Court held that outstanding dues, against mortgaged property, not to be deducted (CIT Vs Attil N Rao (2001) 252 ITR 880 (SC)]. The CIT(Appeals) agreed with the Assessing Officer in disallowing the expenditure relating to the bank payment and the order is confirmed. 19. The other ground raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer regarding the claim of set off of business…

Sivanandha Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…jrapani Naidu 242 ITR 560. The High Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arunachalam Vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 222. The Apex Court held that outstanding dues, against mortgaged property, not to be deducted (CIT Vs Attil N Rao (2001) 252 ITR 880 (SC)]. The CIT(Appeals) agreed with the Assessing Officer in disallowing the expenditure relating to the bank payment and the order is confirmed. 19. The other ground raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer regarding the claim of set off of business…