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

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2913/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43Section 43B

…taking comprising of the entire division of the Planet M retail. Consequently, since the computation provisions relating to capital gain are incapable of being applied, following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (128 ITR 294), the charging provisions of capital gains are not attracted. The said ratio has also been followed by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in Avaya Global Connect Ltd. ITA No.832/Mum/07." 10.During the assessment proceeding,the AO called for the detail working of income of Rs.84,26,04,286/- which was replied by the assessee by letter dated 27.10.10 subm…

Harry Inder Dhaul, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3499/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Harry Inder Dhaul Addl. Cit Range-12(2) 22, Rakhi Mahal, D.V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Road, Road, New Marine Churchgate, Lines Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Abapd1065B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.C. Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S.C. Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)Section 52(2)(vii)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Harry Inder Dhaul Addl. CIT Range-12(2) 22, Rakhi Mahal, D.V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Road, Road, New Marine Churchgate, Lines Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. ABAPD1065B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. S.C. Tiwari, AR Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR Date of Hearing : 13/02/2018 Date of pronouncement : 09/05/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12.…

Asst CIT 10(3) (OSD), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6073/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…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 alread…

ACIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Colgate Palm Olive (I) Ltd, Navi Mumbai

ITA 2778/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 6073/Mum/2014 & Cross Objection No.243/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) (Osd) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.403,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 2778/Mum/2011 & Cross Objection No.126/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited Assistant Commissioner Of Colgate Research Centre Income Tax 10(3) बनाम/ Main Street Room No.451,4Th Floor Hiranandani Gardens, Powai Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccc-4309-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Arvind V. Sonde, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V. Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 92C

…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 alread…

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. India Medtronic P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1800/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora and Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…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.As already ment…

India Medtronic P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1246/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora and Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…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.As already ment…

M/S Flipkart India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 131

…nsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee has not recognised the existence of any such goodwill or any other intangibles or brand. Our attention was drawn to the following passage of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.C.Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 (SC): “A variety of elements goes into its making, and its composition varies in different trades and in different businesses in the same trade, and while one element may preponderate in one business, another may dominate in another business. And yet, because of its intangible nature, it remains insubstantial in form and nebulous in character. T…

Add. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat V. Patel

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

C.A. No.-004380-004380 - 2018Supreme Court24 Apr 2018

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I­643/2000­2001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iii)

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4380 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24888 OF 2015) Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax .... Appellant(s) Versus Bharat V. Patel .... Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No. 4381 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25001 OF 2015 J U D G M E N T R.K.Agrawal, J 1) Leave granted. 2) These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Tax Appeal Nos. 6 and 14 of 2004…

Mehta Jaising Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 125/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Jaising Builders Dcit- Circle -19(1) 398, Kirti Kunj, 14Th Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Khar (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aabtm7681C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sameer G. Dalal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sameer G. Dalal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 203

…t is so deductible under any provision of the 1961 Act, which inter alia brings in the TDS provisions contained in Chapter XVII-B. In fact, if a particular income falls outside s. 4(1) then TDS provisions cannot come in.” In CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. 7.2 The TDS Certificate depicts receipts of Rs.4,06,10,460/- and TDS of Rs.9,20,443/- for the financial year 2006-07. In view of the above position of law, the AO has rightly brought to tax an amount of Rs.13,17…

Nivea India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 903/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal /Dhanesh Bafna and Ms.Hirali DesaiFor Respondent: S/Shri V. Janardhanan -DR
Section 254(1)

…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 already…

Heinz India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 1521/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 80ISection 92C

…eign AE. The Hon’ble Court further held that in 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 B.C.Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) and PNB Finance Ltd.(307 ITR 75). We find that in the case of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) (P) Ltd.(supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, after referring to its earlier decisions in the cases of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(supra) and Whirlpool of India (P) Ltd.(supra), has considered the question of existence of the inter-national transaction and…

Udai Singh Rathore, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 818/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S. L.Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)

…herefore the assessee claimed that in the absence of any cost of acquisition the computation of capital gain fails and consequently no capital gain can be charged to tax in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294. We find that for 3 Shri Udai Singh Rathore vs. ITO, Jaipur deciding this issue raised in the additional ground no additional facts or record is required to be examined. Hence, no verification or inquiry is required to be conducted and the facts relevant to this issues are already on record are not in dispute. Accordingly, in view of the decisio…

Renault India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1078/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1078/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Renault India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, No.37 & 38, Asv Ramana Corporate Circle 5(1) Towers, Chennai. 4Th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.N Agar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aadcr 2042M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144C(5)

…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 [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. :- 32 -: v. 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…

India Medtronic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1600/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: S/Shri Jehangir Mistry, Hiren ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…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/…

Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 3537/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkataraman, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…taking comprising of the entire division of the Planet M retail. Consequently, since the computation provisions relating to capital gain are incapable of being applied, following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (128 ITR 294), the charging provisions of capital gains are not attracted. The said ratio has also been followed by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in Avaya Global Connect Ltd. ITA No.832/Mum/07." 10. During the assessment proceeding, the AO called for the detail working of income of Rs.84,26,04,286/- which was replied by the assessee by letter dated 27.10.10 su…

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 3298/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkataraman, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…taking comprising of the entire division of the Planet M retail. Consequently, since the computation provisions relating to capital gain are incapable of being applied, following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (128 ITR 294), the charging provisions of capital gains are not attracted. The said ratio has also been followed by the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in Avaya Global Connect Ltd. ITA No.832/Mum/07." 10. During the assessment proceeding, the AO called for the detail working of income of Rs.84,26,04,286/- which was replied by the assessee by letter dated 27.10.10 su…

ITO, WD-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S White Cliff Properties (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1511/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 251

…to be satisfied viz. 1) There should be a transfer, within the meaning of sec. 2(47) of the Act, and 2) The computation provision as specified under sec. 48 should be satisfied. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Bangalore vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, 128 ITR 294, held at page 295 (head-note) as follows: “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 with the charging section. All transactions encompassed by section 45 must fall…

M/S. Samikaran Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2016[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

….4050 to 4054/Del./2016 Samikaran Learning Pvt. Ltd. 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]…

M/S. Samikaran Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4050/DEL/2016[2015-16 (F.Y. 2014-15)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

….4050 to 4054/Del./2016 Samikaran Learning Pvt. Ltd. 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]…

M/S. Priapus Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4923/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anunav Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 10Section 14A

…or the assessee contended that since average investment of the assessee in mutual funds during the year under assessment remained zero, no administrative charges are to be levied and relied upon Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. B. C. Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 and DCIT vs. Gulshan Investment Co. Ltd. – (2013) 26 ITR (Trib) 674 (ITAT [Kolk]). 7. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue contended that the administrative charges are required to be charged at 0.05% on investment during the year and relied upon the order passed by AO/CIT(A). 8. The ld. AR for the assessee brought on record det…