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 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 367,164 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 115JB Section 92B Section 234B Section 45 Section 55(2)Section 143(2)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 211 section 55 section 32(1)(ii)section 21 section 92b section 32(1)intangible assets section 48 section 45 book profits fair market value section 115j

Judgments citing CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…IT V D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd 273 ITR 1 also hold that as per 2(24)(vi) only income which is chargeable u/s 45 is to be included in income and if computation provision u/s 45 fails then charging provisions will fail. Ref. to CIT V B.C. Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294. iv) The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the Case of CIT V Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog 269 ITR 399 also held that in case computation provision u/s 48 could not be applied for want of ascertainable cost of acquisition, then capital gain does not arise to be included in total income on account of failure of applicability of computation provision…

Ram Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 522/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 54F

…JP/17_ Ram Lal Sharma and others Vs. ITO capital gain provision fails and therefore, no capital gain can be charged to tax in respect of transfer of the land in question in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294 as well as decisions of Hon’ble High Courts. The second issue raised by the and not in the hand of the individual assessee. These two issues raised in the additional grounds are purely legal in nature though in the absence of these issues raised before the authorities below no verification or enquiry was conducted by the authorities below speci…

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 1835/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-2, New Delhi M/S. Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., E- 9, Connaught House, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca0364L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.S. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 145C(5)Section 92BSection 92F

…ssary checks against arbitrariness while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance." 64. In the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imag : transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. Vs. 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, Dehradun vs. M/S. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1967/DEL/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2017AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 42Section 42(1)

…ding oil fields, as such, is capital in nature. 5. Here in this case, the transfer was in the nature of slump sale and as is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in PNB Finance Ltd. (supra) while referring to the decision in CIT vs. B.C. Sriniwas Shetty (1981) 128 ITR 294, and holding that the ratio of Artex Manufacturing Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC) has no application to the facts of the case and prior to 1.4.2000 there was no computation provision that could be brought to tax as capital gains the consideration received in slump sale. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court followed this principle in CIT vs. DLF…

ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Beejay Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1523/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 14A

…ny application. When no all amount can be computed in the light of the formula given in rule 8D(ii) and (iii), no disallowance can be made under rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) either. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B C Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1, when computation provisions fail, the charging provisions cannot be applied, and by the same logic, when the computation provisions under rule 8D(2) (ii) and (iii) fail, disallowance under the said provisions cannot be made either as the said provision is rendered unworkable." Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions it i…

Ambo Agro Products Ltd., Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 676/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

…capital gain provisions because it was not possible to compute cost of acquisition, it was held that when computation cannot be made in the absence of cost of acquisition, then the charging section itself would not be applicable.( refer PNB Finance Ltd v CIT 307 ITR 75 (SC) 26 ‘Slump sale’, as then understood, meant transfer of business as a going concern, and therefore, it was not possible to determine the actual cost namely the cost of acquisition even though, in a given case, it might be a generated asset ( refer CIT v Artex Manufacturing Co 227 ITR 260 (SC). In such cases, it was not possible to break up an…

Model Industrial Colony, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5234/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Vipul Joshi -ARFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 253Section 254(1)Section 50Section 50C

…(3) The Assessing Officer erred in taxing the gain arising on transfer of unutilised FSI without considering the facts that such right have no cost of acquisition, and therefore, in the light of Supreme Court decision in CIT versus B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294(SC), the gain arising on transfer of these rights cannot be taxed. (4) Without prejudice to the above ground, if the contention of Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) is accepted that the appellant transferred land along with unutilised FSI attest to the land, it is submitted that CIT (Appeal)s erred in not allowing the indexed cost of acquisiti…

Mr.Lemes E. D'Souza, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5802/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5802/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10) Mr. Lemes E. D’ Souza, Ito – Ward 21(3)(3), बनाम/ Alk Bricks Factory Room No. 507, 5 Th Floor, V. Company, C-11, Pratyakshakar Behind Sakinaka, Bhavan, Motor Training School, B.K.C. Bandra, Opp. Janseva Decoilers, Mumbai – 400 051. Sakinaka, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadpd7091 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadev

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(V)Section 45Section 54ESection 54F

…2012 (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol.trib) . In alternative, it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that gains arising from sale of TDR are not taxable and relied upon decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. B.C.Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294(SC) . 8. The ld. D.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was quite right in distinguishing the CBDT circular. It is submitted that the assessee cannot be allowed deduction u/s 54EC of the Act as the investment have not been made within six months from the date of transfer. 9. We have considered rival contentions and also perused the material availab…

The Dy CIT Cir.1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aegis Logistics Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 8372/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/7825/Mum/2004,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6905/Mum/2006 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Aegis Logistics Limited Acit, Circle-1(1) 403, Peninsula Chambers, Morarjee Mills Mumbai. Compound,G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaaca 3302 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8372/Mum/2004 ,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:1999-2000 Acit, Circle-1(1) Vs. Aegis Logistics Limited Mumbai. Mumbai-400013 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri S.K. Mishra-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti Patel सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:10/03/2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 16.6.2004 Of The Cit(A)-I,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.The Assessee Has Also Filed Against The Penalty Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) For The Year Under Appeal.We Will Be Deciding All The Appeals By Single Common Order.Assessee-Company,Engaged In Business Of Manufacturing Of Chemicals,Filed Its Return Of Income,On 31.12.1999,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5.97Crores.The Ao Completed Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 28.3.2002 Determin -Ing Its Income At Rs.13.93Crores. During The Course Of Hearing Before Us The Authorised Representative (Ar) Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Grounds No1.A, 1.C, 1.D & 1.E. Hence,Same Stand Dismissed, As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…sist of not only tangible items but also intangible items like, goodwill, man power, tenancy rights and value of banking licence. However, the cost of such items (intangibles) is not determinable. In the case of CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty reported in [1981] 128 ITR 294, this court held that section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset to Income- tax. In other words, it charges surplus which arises on the transfer of a capital asset in terms of appreciation of capital value of that asset. In the said judgment, this court held that the " asset" must be one which falls withi…

M/S. Aegis Logistics Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 7825/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

M/S Kalyani Barter (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-2(3), Kolkata

In the result the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 681/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ITA No.681 & 824/Kol/2015-M/s. Kalyani Barter (P)Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Hon’ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.681/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 V/s. I.T.O., Ward-2(3) M/s.Kalyani Barter (P)Ltd.,2nd Floor, Room P-7, Chowringhee No.5, 2, Ganesh Chandra Square, Avenue, Kolkata-700013. Kolkata-700069. PAN : AACCK 7579 D .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent I.T.A. No.824/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 V/s. M/s.Kalyani Barter I.T.O., Ward-2(3) (P)Ltd.,2nd Floor, P-7, Chowring…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Chhotey Lal Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3129/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Chhotey Lal Gupta, Ward 41(4), Vs. H-347, J.J. Colony, Room No. 1911, Block-E-2, Shakurpur, Civic Centre, Delhi – 110 034 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Aikpg4520B)

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Ahuja, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271

…house hold expenses is quite meager and depositing Rs. 2,87,220/- in the bank account as claimed out of own savings and opening balance. Keeping in view the above findings and judicial pronouncements (Reliance is placed on ratios reported in 2491TR 265 and 128 ITR 294), I hereby hold that the Ld. AO was not justified in treating deposits of Rs. 42,85,722/- (Rs. 47,35,0001- minus Rs. 4,49,278Ii unexplained. Hence, the addition of Rs. 42,85,722/- is deleted. Accordingly, the appellant gets relief." 2.5 Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 11.3.2016 has observed that his predecessor's order is speaking as he has de…

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 3091/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Vipul Mody -ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3091/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Bharat Serums & Vaccines Ltd. ACIT, Range-3(1) 27th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Vs. Mumbai-21. Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACB 2431 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)…

Krishna Kumar Mittal, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1482/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1482/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-2006)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe & Sh. Kalpesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…ubstantial interest in the three companies. The law do not provided as to in whose hands the amount shall be taxed and thus, the charging section fails and therefore, the amount could not be brought to tax in view of Apex court judgment in B.C.Srinivas Shetty 128 ITR 294. However, not convinced CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee [AR] drew our attention to the fact that same addition has been made in the hands of three persons who hold similar 3 Shri Krishan Kumar Mittal Assessment Year 2005-2006 substantial interest i…

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 383/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm M/S. Thomas Cook (India) Vs. Dcit – 1(3)(2), Limited, Thomas Cook Mumbai Building, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaact4050C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…while at the same time addressing the apprehension of tax avoidance." 18 M/s.Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., 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…

Digital Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3258/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

…here was 4 no capital transfer and secondly even if it was assumed that such waiver constituted transfer of a right (capital asset), there was no cost of acquisition and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C.Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294(SC), no capital gains could be computed and hence the amount received was not taxable. The ld CIT(A) noted that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 236 ITR 903 (SC) and B.C.Srinivasa Setty (supra) ( relied on by the present appellant) were also considered by the ITAT, Hyderabad while pas…

Religare Technova Global Solutions Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 245/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Shri RaviFor Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane,DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…it 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. 3.7.9 The present factual matrix is to be tested on the anvil of the above enunciation of law. In the light of the decisions referred here-in-above, the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition of Rs. 1,0…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

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

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

Section 50B

…of individual assets still remains because of the non-availability of separate full value of consideration in respect of such assets, despite the availability of full value of all the assets taken together. 13. In the case of PNB Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC)], Punjab National Bank Limited vested in Punjab National Bank on nationalization in 1969. On that account it received compensation of `10.20 crore during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee claimed capital loss. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee had submitted its own computation of the fair…

Aditya Birla Telecom Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax 10(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 341/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 391Section 394Section 45Section 47

…is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it would imply that such case was not intended to fall within the scope of charging section. 4. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C.Srinivasa Setty, 128 ITR 294 wherein it was held that where one of the ingredients for computation of capital gains is absent, no capital gains could be levied due to failure of the computation mechanism. The precise observation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was as under :- “………Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted de…

Vatsala Shenoy vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016

Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

…not only tangible items but also intangible items like, goodwill, man power, tenancy rights and value of banking licence. However, the cost of such items (intangibles) is not determinable. In the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty reported in [1981] 128 ITR 294, this court held that section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset to income-tax. In other words, it charges surplus which arises on the transfer of a capital asset in terms of appreciation of capital value of that asset. In the said judgment, this Court held that the “asset” must be one which falls withi…