What is CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty authority for?

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

How many judgments cite CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty?

628 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294), spanning 2005 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 92B, Section 234B, Section 45, Section 55(2).

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294)

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…ewed from another perspective, even if it were assumed that the assessee had relinquished his interest in the trust, the computation of capital gains would still be infeasible. This follows the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, where it was held that none of the provisions under the head “Capital Gains” applies to an asset in respect of which no acquisition cost can be conceived. The Court emphasized that an asset must fall within the contemplation of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, and the computation of gains under this section must be governed by the prescribed pr…

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…ewed from another perspective, even if it were assumed that the assessee had relinquished his interest in the trust, the computation of capital gains would still be infeasible. This follows the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, where it was held that none of the provisions under the head “Capital Gains” applies to an asset in respect of which no acquisition cost can be conceived. The Court emphasized that an asset must fall within the contemplation of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, and the computation of gains under this section must be governed by the prescribed pr…

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 92/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…ewed from another perspective, even if it were assumed that the assessee had relinquished his interest in the trust, the computation of capital gains would still be infeasible. This follows the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, where it was held that none of the provisions under the head “Capital Gains” applies to an asset in respect of which no acquisition cost can be conceived. The Court emphasized that an asset must fall within the contemplation of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, and the computation of gains under this section must be governed by the prescribed pr…

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 91/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…ewed from another perspective, even if it were assumed that the assessee had relinquished his interest in the trust, the computation of capital gains would still be infeasible. This follows the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, where it was held that none of the provisions under the head “Capital Gains” applies to an asset in respect of which no acquisition cost can be conceived. The Court emphasized that an asset must fall within the contemplation of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, and the computation of gains under this section must be governed by the prescribed pr…

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3344/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…ewed from another perspective, even if it were assumed that the assessee had relinquished his interest in the trust, the computation of capital gains would still be infeasible. This follows the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, where it was held that none of the provisions under the head “Capital Gains” applies to an asset in respect of which no acquisition cost can be conceived. The Court emphasized that an asset must fall within the contemplation of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, and the computation of gains under this section must be governed by the prescribed pr…

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3343/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…ewed from another perspective, even if it were assumed that the assessee had relinquished his interest in the trust, the computation of capital gains would still be infeasible. This follows the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, where it was held that none of the provisions under the head “Capital Gains” applies to an asset in respect of which no acquisition cost can be conceived. The Court emphasized that an asset must fall within the contemplation of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, and the computation of gains under this section must be governed by the prescribed pr…

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3342/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

…ewed from another perspective, even if it were assumed that the assessee had relinquished his interest in the trust, the computation of capital gains would still be infeasible. This follows the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, where it was held that none of the provisions under the head “Capital Gains” applies to an asset in respect of which no acquisition cost can be conceived. The Court emphasized that an asset must fall within the contemplation of Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, and the computation of gains under this section must be governed by the prescribed pr…

Jag Mohan, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7055/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.7055/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2014-15) Jag Mohan, 354, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Delhi 110034 Pan Ahdpm-3671-M बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle-18, New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Raghav Sharma, Mohit Gupta, Chartered Accountants & Ms. Chandrima Choudhary, Advocate प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Namita Khurana Cit-Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 18/09/2017, For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S.132 Of The Income Was Conducted On 26.08.2013 In The Case Of Mohan India Group. The Assessee Is One Of The Directors Of Mohan India Group & The Assessee Was Also Covered Under Said Search. During

For Appellant: S/Shri Raghav Sharma, Mohit Gupta, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on. They are the legal base for the tax authorities to raise a demand. While charging section creates the liability, machinery section provides the mechanism for computing the tax. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty, 128 ITR 294 has held: “8. ……….. This inference flows from the general arrangement of the provisions in the Income- tax Act, whereunder each head of income the charging provision is accompanied by a set of provisions for computing the income subject to that charge. The character of the computation provisions in each case bears a relationship to the nature of…

Director of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai vs. M/S. American Express Bank Ltd

C.A. No.-008291-008291 - 2015Supreme Court15 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 44C

…ntry only, the question of allocating a part of the expenditure in question to the business carried on in India cannot arise. Civil Appeal Nos 8291 of 2015 & 4451 of 2016 Page 35 of 55 In CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty (1981] 128 ITR 294, the Supreme Court held that the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. Referring to section 48(ii), the Supreme Court further obs…

Janardan R Patel L/H of Late Shri Ravjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Anand

ITA 812/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151

…s. 14,58,560/- on account of sale of agricultural land without granting deduction of indexed cost of acquisition without which computation of long term capital gain was impermissible as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B C Srinivassa Setty 128 ITR 294 (SC), Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 2,49,324/-” Additional Grounds of Appeal “1. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred on facts and in law in not quashing the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without disclosing reasons for reopening and inviting appellant's objections thereon after filing of return of income in response to notice u/s 1…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

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

ITA 1499/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 211(2)

…at machinery provision provided in sub- section (2) of section 115JB of the Act, would be rendered wholly unworkable in such a situation. In a well known judgment the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs B.C. Shrinivasa Setty, Vo. 128 ITR 294 = 2002-TIOL-587-SC-IT-LB, had observed that in the Income Tax Act, a charging section and the computing provisions together constitute an integrated code. In a case where the computation provision cannot apply, it would be evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. It was a case of charging a partnership firm f…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

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

ITA 1498/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 211(2)

…at machinery provision provided in sub- section (2) of section 115JB of the Act, would be rendered wholly unworkable in such a situation. In a well known judgment the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs B.C. Shrinivasa Setty, Vo. 128 ITR 294 = 2002-TIOL-587-SC-IT-LB, had observed that in the Income Tax Act, a charging section and the computing provisions together constitute an integrated code. In a case where the computation provision cannot apply, it would be evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. It was a case of charging a partnership firm f…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

ITA 1497/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 211(2)

…at machinery provision provided in sub- section (2) of section 115JB of the Act, would be rendered wholly unworkable in such a situation. In a well known judgment the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs B.C. Shrinivasa Setty, Vo. 128 ITR 294 = 2002-TIOL-587-SC-IT-LB, had observed that in the Income Tax Act, a charging section and the computing provisions together constitute an integrated code. In a case where the computation provision cannot apply, it would be evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. It was a case of charging a partnership firm f…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

ITA 1496/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CA

Section 115JSection 211(2)

…at machinery provision provided in sub- section (2) of section 115JB of the Act, would be rendered wholly unworkable in such a situation. In a well known judgment the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs B.C. Shrinivasa Setty, Vo. 128 ITR 294 = 2002-TIOL-587-SC-IT-LB, had observed that in the Income Tax Act, a charging section and the computing provisions together constitute an integrated code. In a case where the computation provision cannot apply, it would be evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. It was a case of charging a partnership firm f…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

ITA 1495/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CA

Section 115JSection 211(2)

…at machinery provision provided in sub- section (2) of section 115JB of the Act, would be rendered wholly unworkable in such a situation. In a well known judgment the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs B.C. Shrinivasa Setty, Vo. 128 ITR 294 = 2002-TIOL-587-SC-IT-LB, had observed that in the Income Tax Act, a charging section and the computing provisions together constitute an integrated code. In a case where the computation provision cannot apply, it would be evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. It was a case of charging a partnership firm f…

Mrs Shireen J. Dastur, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Taxation Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2204/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shireen J. Dastur Income Tax Officer, 330, Coral Avenue, (International Taxation), New Port Beach, Ward 2(1)(1), California Vs. Mumbai 92662 Usa (Pan : Ctlpd0257N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Gunjan Kakkad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 234B

…essee had also raised ground relating to inability of determination of cost of acquisition/cost of improvement of the so called capital asset, hence no capital gain could be charged by applying the ratio decidendi in the case of CIT vs. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC). According to the ld. Counsel, there is no cost of acquisition and thus, the computation provision is inapplicable and thus the charge 14 Shireen J Dastur AY 2018-19 under the head “capital gains” fails. Accordingly, the receipt is not taxable. Since we have already held the receipt not chargeable under the head “capital gains”, the ground…

Tupperware India Private Limited, Connaught Place New Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ip Estate New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 4475/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92BSection 92C

…applicable to the transfer pricing exercise. Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that Chapter X as a whole does not permit such an adjustment. The relevant extract is reproduced below:- “76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C SrinivasaSetty (1979) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd vs. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) in the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined international transaction to tax is fraught with the danger of invalidation. In the present case, in the absence of there being an international transaction involving AMP spend with an ascertainable price, neither the substantiv…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ach is that it wants every instance of an AMP spend by an Indian entity which happens to use the brand of a foreign AE to be presumed to involve an international transaction...... 75. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 75/175 Taxman 242 (SC) in the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined international transaction to tax is fraught ITA No.1073/Del/2015 & ITA No.1158/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2010-2011 with the danger of invalidation. In the present case, in the absence of there being an inter…

Ramesh Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 980/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 50(2)(ec)Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)Section 55(2)(as)Section 56(2)(ac)

…g from the sale of shares under the OFS were not exigible to tax at all, as the computation mechanism for determining capital gains failed under the law. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and subsequent decisions to submit that where the computation machinery provided under the Act fails, the charging provision itself cannot be applied. The principal argument was that under Explanation to section 55(2)(ac), the determination of fair market value (FMV) as cost of acquisition is contingent upon the share being listed on a recog…

Ais Shivaji Memorial Societys Employees Coop Credit Society, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 207/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. SasarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 10ASection 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year : 2019-20 AIS Shivaji Memorial Societys ITO, Ward 2(1), Pune Employees Coop Credit Society Vs. 55/56, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 PAN: AACAS9555M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak S. Sasar Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 25-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.11.2024 of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A)-2, C…

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

What is CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

Jag Mohan, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

Director of Income Tax (It)-I, Mumbai vs. M/S. American Express Bank Ltd

Janardan R Patel L/H of Late Shri Ravjibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Anand

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

Mrs Shireen J. Dastur, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Taxation Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Tupperware India Private Limited, Connaught Place New Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ip Estate New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

Ramesh Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

Ais Shivaji Memorial Societys Employees Coop Credit Society, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Pune