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 367,154 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

M/S. Lml Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG.3(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3540/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…so, he held that, since there is no cost of acquisition which can be attributed to the rights surrendered by the SCB can be arrived at, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs B.C. Srinivasa Shetty, reported in [1981] 128 ITR 294, no capital gain is liable to be taxed. Thus, on these grounds, he deleted the addition made by the AO. 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee after explaining the entire facts which has been succinctly discussed above by us, he submitted that here in this case, by virtue of termination of the JV agreement the entire business of the asse…

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata vs. Add.CIT, Range-6, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1199/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Barun Kumar Ghosh & Shri Piyush Dey, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 28Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

…have any application. When no amount can be computed in the light of the formula given in rule 8 D(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 Vs B C Srinivas Shetty ( 128 ITR 294), when computation provisions fail, the charging provisions cannot be applied, and by the same logic, when the computation provisions under rule 8 D (2) (ii) and (iii) fail, disallowance under the said provisions cannot be made either as the said provision is rendered unworkable. 7. However, that does not exclude the application of rule 8 D(2)(i…

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 1261/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././I.T.A./ 1261 & 1238/Mum/2015, आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष" Thomas Cook (India) Limited Dcit-1 (3)(2) Thomas Cook Building Mumbai. Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Fort,Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaact 4050 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand-Cit Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Orders Dated 08.12.2014 & 24.12.2014 Of Cit(A)-58 & Of The Assesssing Officer(Ao),The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.).Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Tour Operator,Travel Agent & Is Also An Authorised Dealer In Foreign Exchange.The Details Of Filing Of Returns,Returned Incomes,Assessed Incomes Etc.Can Be Summarised As Under: A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Assessment Assessed Dt. Of Orders Of Income(Rs.) Dt. Income(Rs.) Cit(A)/Ao 2009-10 30.09.2009 44,28,33,999/- 28/03/2013 46,8432,558/- 08.12.2014 2010-11 30.09.2010 37,15,77,109/- 16/01/2015 57,86,82,443/- 16.01.2015

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT

Section 254(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. 1261 & 1238/M…

ACIT, Bellary vs. M/S Kampli Co-Op Sugar Factory Limite, Kampli

ITA 829/BANG/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

…“ There is a clear finding by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that capital gain is computable. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was obliged to compute the capital gains. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PNB Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) has held that when sale consideration cannot be split, no capital gain is computable. The Hon'ble High Court for this purpose has directed the Assessing Officer to look into the split-up of consideration as provided in the books of the buyer. But no attempt has been made in this regard. To this extent, the Assessing Officer has not followed t…

DCIT- CC-44, Mumbai vs. Jik Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4922/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2001-02

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Motwani

Section 143(3)

…isition of right to do business as Nil has been introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2003.' As such before 01.04.2003 when there is no cost of acquisition - the machinery section for calculation of capital gain fails. Following the ratio in case of CIT V/s Srinivas Shetty 128 ITR 294 (Supreme Court), - no capital gain can be computed if the machinery section fails. 5.3 In view of the aforesaid facts, the addition of Rs. 1,23,75,0001- made by the AO treating the same as short term capital gain is not maintainable. Hence addition made by the AO is deleted.” 10. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the…

D.C.I.T Cir - 7, Kolkata. vs. Bhagirath Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 79/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 50BSection 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member ITA No.79/Kol/2013 & C.O. No.27/Kol/2013 (a/o ITA No.79/Kol/2013) Assessment Year :2009-10 DCIT, Circle-7, P7, V/s. Bhagirath Agarwal, Chowringhee Square, 5th Rajkamal Building, 1st Floor, Room No.15, Floor, 13 Camac Kolkata-700 069 St.Kolkata-700 017 Shri Bhagirath Agarwal V/s. DCIT, Circle-7, Raj Kamal Building, 1st Kolkata Floor, 13, Camac Street Kolkata-700 017 [PAN No.ACZPA 4354 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri S…

ACIT 5(1), Mumbai vs. Cadbury India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5876/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: S/Shri N.K.Chand-CIT

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…ary 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 5470 & ors.cadbury 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 e…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharti Teletech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeal of the Department as well as

ITA 3873/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Acit Vs Bharti Teletech Ltd., Circle 2(1), D-195, Room No. 398D, Okhla Industrial Area Phase I, C.R. Building, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb3989M) C.O. No. 72/Del/2014 (In Ita No. 3873/Del/2012) Ay: 2004-05 Bharti Teletech Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle 2(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Dr Respondent By: Shri Amit Bhalla, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.05.2016

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Anuragi, DRFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bhalla, CA

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

…1988 SC 631 wherein the Apex Court has opined that the term „similar‟ means corresponding to or resembling to in many aspects. In this regard, it would not be out of place to refer to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC) wherein the concept of goodwill has been understood in the following terms: I.T.A. 3873/D/2012 & C.O. 72/D/2014 Assessment Year 2004-05 "Goodwill denotes the benefit arising from connection and reputation. The original definition by Lord Eldon in Cruttwell v. Lye 1810 17 Ves 335 that goodwill was nothing more than "the probability that the…

Dipsc Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I T Cir - VI, Kolkata

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

ITA 890/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 211Section 616

…hole provision fails, in other words there is "breakdown" of the whole provision and the provision cannot be applied. 25.1 While deciding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration its own decision in the case of CIT vs B C Srinivasa Setty in 128 ITR 294 wherein Supreme Court had pointed out that under the scheme of the Income Tax Act charge of tax will not get attracted unless the case or transaction falls under the governance of the relevant computation provisions. The Supreme Court in RC. Srinivasa Setty's case has observed as under - "The character of the computation provisions in each case…

L'Oreal India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 7714/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar and Ms. Jasmin AmalsadualaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT

Section 254(1)Section 92

…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…

M/S. the Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-29, Mumbai

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

ITA 7524/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7524/Mum/2007 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) The Supreme Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Cc-29, 612, Raheja Chambers, 213, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 1344 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. 2. First Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Taxing Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B R.W.S.2(42C) Arising On The Transfer Of The Bopp Films Undertaking To Xpro India Ltd. (Xil). 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. This Ground Relates To Taxation Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B Read With Section 2(42C) Of The I.T. Act. The Facts In Brief Relating To This Addition Are That During The Previous Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Entered Into A Business Transfer Agreement (Bta) With Xpro India Ltd (Xil) For Sale Of Its Bopp Films Undertaking At Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh As A Going-Concern For A Total

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Section 2Section 50B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘जे’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.7524/Mum/2007 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) The Supreme Industries Limited, Vs. The ACIT, CC-29, 612, Raheja Chambers, 213, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAACT 1344 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 02/02/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/D…

Gyanendra Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/138/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

…ad in Gulab Chand (supra) concluded that in the light of the ITA Nos. 136 & 138/2004 Page 18 of 23 decision in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) even if a receipt is of capital nature it might not attract capital gains chargeable under Section 45 of the Act “for the simple reason that there was no cost of acquisition for the tenancy right”. Therefore it was held to be of a casual and non-recurring nature within the meaning of Section 10(3) of the Act. 27. The Calcutta High…

Girish Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/136/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

Heinz India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly,we restore the issue to the file of the AO.He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing the assessee before deciding the matter.Additional ground,raised by the assessee ...

ITA 1210/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 92C

…oreign 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 c…

Heinz India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 7732/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 92C

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(3), Mumbai

ITA 7545/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri P. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chandra

Section 254(1)Section 92Section 92B

…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…

M/S Bharti Hexacom Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and department’s appeal dismissed

ITA 3394/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra: & Shri A.T. Varkey:

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla CA &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 194HSection 194JSection 234BSection 35ASection 40Section 54

…achinery provisions do not come into play because there was no income which arose to payee from transaction, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be resorted to. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Shetty 128 ITR 294 and also son the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 225 (SC), wherein it has been held that under the Income tax Act, 1961, the machinery provisions formed an integrated code for the charging and the computation provisions, which determine the taxable income. Ld. counsel submitted th…

M/S. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee-company are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: S/Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Armendra Kumar, CIT/ DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 2Section 92B

…tions of Hon’ble Court are reproduced as under for ready reference : “37. Additionally it was held both in MSIL (supra) as well as Whirlpool of India Limited (supra) that in terms of the law explained by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivas Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Limited 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, even if such price…

ACIT 11(2), Mumbai vs. Ajay I.. Thakore, Mumbai

ITA 6917/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/6917 /Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-11(2) Shri Ajay I. Thakore Room No.479, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1416, Dalamal Tower, M.K. Road Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aabpt 0802 G आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6602/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Ajay I. Thakore Vs. Acit-11(2) Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M.Murli Assessee By: Shri Ajay Indrajit Thakore सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) 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 Dt.25/7/2011 Of The Cit(A)-3 Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed The Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal.Assessee, An Individual Filed His Return Of Income On 20/07/2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.56.22 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 21. 12.2010,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2.40 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Indrajit ThakoreFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 254(1)Section 45Section 49Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(a)Section 55(2)(ii)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/6917 /Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-11(2) Shri Ajay I. Thakore Room no.479, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1416, Dalamal Tower, M.K. Road Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. PAN:AABPT 0802 G आयकर अपील…

Janet Fernades (Legal Heir of Late Fernandes Jack Xavier ), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 18(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is hereby treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7411/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Miss. Janet Fernandes, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Legal Heir Of Late Mr. Tax, Fernandes Jack Xavier, Circle – 18(2), 2Nd Floor, Mumbai Vs. Casa Maria, Gokhle Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400 028 Pan: Aaapf 7347R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. & Shri Kishore Patel, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. & Shri Kishore Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 50CSection 54

…her, vide additional ground of appeal, has pleaded that as there was no cost of acquisition of the additional FSI transferred by the assessee, hence in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (1981) 128 ITR 294 and further in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Sambhaji Nagar Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd.” in ITA No.1356 of 2012, no capital gains tax is chargeable in that respect. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the original assessee Late Mr. Fernandes Jack Xavier had given a building for development to a bui…