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

M/S.Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 739/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…n 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.SrinivasaSetty (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…

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 804/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…n 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.SrinivasaSetty (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…

Nike India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is allowed and all other appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 330/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N Venkatraman, K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra and Shri Muzaffar
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…n 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.SrinivasaSetty (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…

ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mattel Toys (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3903/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit-7(2)(1) Vs. M/S. Mattel Toys (India) R. No. 573, 5Th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Phoenix House Mumbai – 400 020 Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaccm2563P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.152/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3903/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2010-11) M/S. Mattel Toys (India) Vs. Acit-7(2)(1) R. No. 573, 5Th Floor Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, B Wing Aayakar Bhavan Phoenix House M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aaccm2563P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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. 65. As alrea…

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the taxpayer is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9481/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 37(1)Section 92C

…ansaction be extended or expanded beyond the amount received as reimbursement under the MDF agreement? …… 39. It is also pertinent that the Hon’ble Court further held that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 75 (SC), in the absence of a machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. If such a transaction with an ascertainable price is not shown to exist, Chapter X cannot be invoked. The aforementioned principles have also been applied by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…e Kerala High Court in B. Raveendran Pillai ( supra) underlined that goodwill is also a species of depreciable right which can claim the benefit of Section 32. Those decisions were based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 and subsequent cases which have ruled that goodwill is a depreciable capital asset. So far as the decisions in Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court clearly limited its holding that the right to membership of Stock Exchange is in the nature of "any other business or commercial right" which was an intangibl…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…e Kerala High Court in B. Raveendran Pillai ( supra) underlined that goodwill is also a species of depreciable right which can claim the benefit of Section 32. Those decisions were based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 and subsequent cases which have ruled that goodwill is a depreciable capital asset. So far as the decisions in Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court clearly limited its holding that the right to membership of Stock Exchange is in the nature of "any other business or commercial right" which was an intangibl…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…e Kerala High Court in B. Raveendran Pillai ( supra) underlined that goodwill is also a species of depreciable right which can claim the benefit of Section 32. Those decisions were based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 and subsequent cases which have ruled that goodwill is a depreciable capital asset. So far as the decisions in Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court clearly limited its holding that the right to membership of Stock Exchange is in the nature of "any other business or commercial right" which was an intangibl…

L, Oreal India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 7 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7204/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhl‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle-7(1)(2) A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Aayakar Bhavan, Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, M.K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Vs. Pan: Aaacl0738K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 .07.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Seth (AR)For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…d submits that no depreciation can be allowed on the self-generated goodwill in accounting as it is not an intangible asset. 20. The ld DR for the revenue strongly relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC), 27 ITA No. 7204 Mum 2019-L‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Hon‟ble Court held that “Goodwill denotes the benefit arising from connection and reputation”. The ld. DR also refereed the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Triune Energy Services (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2016] 65 taxmann.com 288 (Delhi), wherein it was has held as under; 13.…

Yogini Mohit Sahita, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD- 2 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5419/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)

…ts received by the assessee as Yogini Mohit Sahita 6 consideration for transfer of possessory rights was not chargeable to tax as capital gains and cannot be termed as transfer of tenancy rights. Also a catena of decisions including B.C. Srinivas Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) is relied upon by him on the proposition that as the cost of adverse possession is absent, then computing provision of section 48 will not apply. Finally, the Ld. counsel files and relies on the decision in CIT v. Star Chemicals (Bom) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1110 & 1153 of 2009) dated 14.08.2009 ; Smt. Seetha S. Shetty (ITA No. 807/Mum/2017) ; S…

ACIT, Ltu - 2, Kolkata vs. M/S. Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. M/S Uco Bank Acit, Ltu-2, Kolkata 10, Btm, Sarani, Kolkata – 700001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3561B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shankar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. S. Damle, FCA
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 211Section 40

…ing company, would convince us that machinery provision provided in sub- section (2) of section l15JB of the Act, would be rendered wholly unworkable in such a situation. In a well known judgment the Supreme court in case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 had observed that in the Income Tax Act, a charing section and the computing provisions together constitute an integrated code. In a case where the computation provision can not 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 for transfer of…

M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 625/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (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 substanti…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 518/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (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 substanti…

DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 529/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (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 substanti…

Reckitt Denckiser (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas Appeals of the revenue are dismissed to the extent indicated above

ITA 404/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.404/Kol/2015 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.625/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate & Shri Rohan Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K Srihari, CIT(DR)

…scheme encapsulating the legislative policy and mandate which provides the necessary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance. 76. As explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (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 substanti…

Haresh Natvarlal Sanghvi, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 4, Thane

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2043/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodharesh Natvarlal Sanghavi Acit, Circle-4, 6Th Floor Nikunj House, Manav Mandir A-Wing, Room No. 2, Ashar I.T Park, Vs. Ambadi Road, Vasai (W), Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane. Thane(W) – 400 604 Pan –Afcps7828F Acit, Circle-4, 6Th Floor Haresh Natvarlal Sanghavi A-Wing, Room No. 2, Ashar I.T Park, Nikunj House, Manav Mandir Vs. Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Ambadi Road, Vasai (W), Thane(W) – 400 604 Thane. Pan –Afcps7828F Assessee By: S/Shri Nirav Vora & Ankita Lunia, A.Rs Revenue By: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2020

For Appellant: S/shri Nirav Vora & Ankita Lunia, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24Section 32Section 57

…TR 539 (SC), to which our attention was invited by Mr. Dastur, learned counsel for the assessee. The Supreme Court, in Palai Central Bank's case (supra), cited with approval its earlier judgment in CIT vs. B. C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 138 : (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC), and held that, under the scheme of the IT Act, 1961, charge of tax will not get attracted unless the case or transaction falls under the governance of the relevant computation provisions. The Supreme Court observed: "…character of the computation provisions in each case bears a relationship to the nature of the charge. Thus, the charging se…

Nxp India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2861/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

…April, 2000. Moreover, the words allotted or transferred in cl. (iiia) has been subsequently deleted w.e.f. 1st April, 2001.For the aforesaid reasons, the cl. (iiia) cannot be read as retrospective. – CIT v. B.C.Srinivasa Setty (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 138 : (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) relied on. Even assuming that there was “benefit”, every benefit received by the person is not taxable as income. Unless the benefit is made taxable, it cannot be regarded as income. During the relevant assessment years, there was no provision in law which made such benefit taxable as income. Further, as stated, the benefit was prospective.…

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 279/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji with Shri Amol Patankar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sunil K. Jha (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 234DSection 244ASection 254(1)Section 3Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…During the assessment, the assessee claimed that long term capital gain (LTCG) declared by assessee on sale of transfer of development right (TDR) is not taxable gain, on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (128 ITR 294). The claim of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. 3. The assessee exercised its option for filing objection before the ld. DRP. The DRP after hearing the assessee granted partial relief on guarantee commission restricting the same @ 1.5% of the loan amount. However, all other additions/disallowances were upheld. On receipt of direct…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ing. Vysya Bank Limited

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/18/2014HC Karnataka16 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 114JSection 260Section 37(1)

…ed code. When there is a case to which computation provision cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within charging section. [SEE:‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 17 BANGALORE VS. B.C.SHRINIVASA SETTY’, 1981 VOL 128 ITR 294]. The machinery provisions provided in Sub- Section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act would be rendered wholly unworkable in case of a Banking company. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Companies Act, 1956 has excluded insurance, banking companies or the companies engaged in the generation or supply of electricity from the purview…

Yamuna Khadar Shiksha Samiti, Delhi vs. ITO, TDS, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6259/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Acharya, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234E

…, no fees could be charged from the assessee. Second aspect of the same was that the Assessing Officer had no authority to levy the fees prior to 01.06.2015. He referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1, which had laid down the proposition that in cases where the cost of acquisition of the assets were Nil, then no capital gains has to be computed in the hands of assessee since there was no mechanism to charge capital gains. He further stressed that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India [2015]…