CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

128 ITR 294Supreme Court of India1981#92 most cited

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.

628

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty · 128 ITR 294 · Section 45 · Section 48 · Section 55(2) · cost of acquisition · capital gains computation · machinery provision · unascertainable cost · intangible assets · taxability of goodwill · no tax without machinery

Also reported as

5 Taxmann 1

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 92BSection 234BSection 45Section 55(2)Section 143(2)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 211section 55section 32(1)(ii)section 21section 92bsection 32(1)intangible assetssection 48section 45book profitsfair market valuesection 115j

Judgments citing CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

Kerman Monocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 66/SRT/2020[2014-15 QUARTER 2]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…d latest within one year from the due date. 14 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty[1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Kerman Monocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2020[2014-15 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…d latest within one year from the due date. 14 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty[1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Ranjitbhai Ambubhai Patel, Bilimora vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Banglore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 14 ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Ranjitbhai Ambubhai Patel, Bilimora vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Banglore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 63/SRT/2020[215-16 QUARTER 3]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 14 ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Ranjitbhai Ambubhai Patel, Bilimora vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Banglore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 62/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 2]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 14 ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Ranjitbhai Ambubhai Patel, Bilimora vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Banglore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 61/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 14 ITA Nos.61-64/SRT/2020 (A.Y15-16) Sh. Ranjitbhai A Patel 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Kerman Minocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 40/SRT/2020[QUARTER-IV 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…d latest within one year from the due date. 14 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty[1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Kerman Minocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 39/SRT/2020[QUARTER-III 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…d latest within one year from the due date. 14 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty[1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Kerman Minocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 38/SRT/2020[QUARTER-II 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…d latest within one year from the due date. 14 ITA Nos.38-40/SRT/2020 &65-66/SRT/2020 (A.Ys.13-14 & 14-15) Sh. Kerman M Buhariwala 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty[1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

Desai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Na

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

ITA 506/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.B.G. Mahapatra, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण सुरत "ायपीठ सुरत INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.505/SRT/2018 (for Q-2, Form No-24Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.506/SRT/2018 (for Q-2, Form No-26Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.507/SRT/2018 (for Q-3, Form No-24Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.508/SRT/2018 (for Q-3, Form No-26Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.509/SRT/2018 (for Q-4, Form No-24Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.510/SRT/2018 (for Q-4, Form No-26Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.511/SRT/2018 (for Q-1, Form No-24Q) for A Y- 2013-14 ITA No.512/SRT/2018 (for Q-1, F…

Desai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Na

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

ITA 505/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.B.G. Mahapatra, Sr.D.R
Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण सुरत "ायपीठ सुरत INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.505/SRT/2018 (for Q-2, Form No-24Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.506/SRT/2018 (for Q-2, Form No-26Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.507/SRT/2018 (for Q-3, Form No-24Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.508/SRT/2018 (for Q-3, Form No-26Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.509/SRT/2018 (for Q-4, Form No-24Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.510/SRT/2018 (for Q-4, Form No-26Q) for A Y- 2012-13 ITA No.511/SRT/2018 (for Q-1, Form No-24Q) for A Y- 2013-14 ITA No.512/SRT/2018 (for Q-1, F…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Kimberly Clark Lever Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 576/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…between the excess A&M expenses incurred by the assessee and the A&M expenses incurred by comparable entities chosen by the TPO. Finally, the Hon’ble High Court referring to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. B. C. Srinivasa Setty, 128 ITR 294 and PNB Finance Ltd. vs. CIT, 307 ITR 75 held that in the absence of any machinery provisions to compute the arm’s length price of transactions the provisions of Chapter X cannot be invoked for the purpose of making the TP adjustments. 10. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the issue of computation of TP adjustments should be remand…

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani
Section 143(3)

…sary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance.” 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v, CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position explicit. Therefore,where the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expense with an ascertainable price is- unable to be shown to exist, even if such price is nil,Chapter X provisions cannot be invoked to undertake a TP adjustment exercise. 1261 & 1238/M/…

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Ferrero India Pvt.Ltd, Pune

ITA 7/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Kumar Jain and Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya Bajpai

…the absence of machinery provisions, bringing an imagined transaction to tax was not possible. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon‟ble High Court had placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases of CIT vs. B.C.Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) and PNB Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (307 ITR 75). The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra) and Whirlpool of India (P) Ltd.,(supra) had considered the question of existence of the international transaction and computation of ALP thereon in the case of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India…

D. Senthamaraiselvi, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Gaziabad

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 406/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

…with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The ITA Nos.405, 406 & 407/Chny/2022 decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, t…

D. Senthamaraiselvi, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Gaziabad

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 405/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

…with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The ITA Nos.405, 406 & 407/Chny/2022 decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, t…

D S Hospital Private Liited, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 331/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

…with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

D S Hospital Private Liited, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 330/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

…with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

D S Hospital Private Liited, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 329/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

…with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, the asset was in the nature of goo…

D. Senthamaraiselvi, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Ghaziabad

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 407/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

…with fee and interest is paid. The additional condition being that the statement is filed latest within one year from the due date. 21. Counsel for the petitioner however, referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The ITA Nos.405, 406 & 407/Chny/2022 decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case on hand, t…