CIT v. Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.

261 ITR 222High Court2003#8354 most cited

What is CIT v. Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Expenses incurred to overcome difficulties in the sale of a property are deductible as they are intimately connected to the transfer of the asset and are paid in the interest of the assessee.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. · 261 ITR 222 · HC · 2003 · capital gains · deduction · expenses to clear encumbrances · sale of property · interest of assessee · section 48

Sections most often in play

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(1)Section 37

Judgments citing CIT v. Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Zarah Rafique Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

…cisions was followed in number of cases viz CIT Vs Abrar Alvi (2001) 247 ITR 312 (Bom) the SLP of the revenue is dismissed 253 ITR (st) 80, and in case of CIT Vs Piroja C patel (2000) 242 ITR 582 (Bom). The Madras Court in CIT Vs Bradford Trading Co. (P) Ltd 261 ITR 222, was concerned with the allowability of an amount paid to get over difficulties in the sale of the property. The court holds that unless such amount was paid, the transfer of property could not have taken place and hence such payment has an intimate connection to the transfer of the asset. Payment of the amount to end 8 ITA 5159/Mum/2025 Zarah R…

M/S Trimm Exports Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order dated 08

ITA/43/2017HC Karnataka13 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 260Section 48

…isions of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed 6 on decisions in 'CIT VS. MISS PIROJA C. PATEL', (2000) 242 ITR 582 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. T. SREENIVASA RAO', (1987) 166 ITR 593 (AP), 'UOI VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN', (2003) 261 ITR 222 (MADRAS). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has invited the attention of this court to para 9.11 to 9.27 of the order passed by the Assessing Officer. It is further submitted that the assessee did not shift the premises and the Assessing Officer has recorded a finding of fact that the lessee was in possession of the prem…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Sri. K.Srikanth, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…plication of income that is received by way of sale of share and cannot be in any way said to be an expenditure incurred towards sale or improvement in the cost of the asset. The decision relied upon by the ld.AR in the case of Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (261 ITR 222), in my opinion, Is not applicable to the facts of this case since the decision related to clearance of specific encumbrances on the assets sold. A suit was filed by one of the shareholders when the assessee company transferred a building belonging to it. The Hon’ble Court held payment of `2 lakhs over and above return of share capital was deduct…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…plication of income that is received by way of sale of share and cannot be in any way said to be an expenditure incurred towards sale or improvement in the cost of the asset. The decision relied upon by the ld.AR in the case of Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (261 ITR 222), in my opinion, Is not applicable to the facts of this case since the decision related to clearance of specific encumbrances on the assets sold. A suit was filed by one of the shareholders when the assessee company transferred a building belonging to it. The Hon’ble Court held payment of `2 lakhs over and above return of share capital was deduct…

Sri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…plication of income that is received by way of sale of share and cannot be in any way said to be an expenditure incurred towards sale or improvement in the cost of the asset. The decision relied upon by the ld.AR in the case of Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (261 ITR 222), in my opinion, Is not applicable to the facts of this case since the decision related to clearance of specific encumbrances on the assets sold. A suit was filed by one of the shareholders when the assessee company transferred a building belonging to it. The Hon’ble Court held payment of `2 lakhs over and above return of share capital was deduct…

Shri K.Srikanth, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…plication of income that is received by way of sale of share and cannot be in any way said to be an expenditure incurred towards sale or improvement in the cost of the asset. The decision relied upon by the ld.AR in the case of Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (261 ITR 222), in my opinion, Is not applicable to the facts of this case since the decision related to clearance of specific encumbrances on the assets sold. A suit was filed by one of the shareholders when the assessee company transferred a building belonging to it. The Hon’ble Court held payment of `2 lakhs over and above return of share capital was deduct…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Rekha Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 945/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (ACIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 48

…le Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Abrar Alvi (2001) 247 ITR 312. He has also relied upon the decision in case of CIT Shakuntala Kantilal 190 ITR 56 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 261 ITR 222 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Courts have taken a consistent view that the amount paid for removing encumbrance and settlement of claim is expenditure incurred in connection of transfer of capital assets 4 ACIT vs. Smt. Rekha Sharma deductable U/s 48 of the Act. He has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the riv…

Dinar Umeshkumar More, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1503/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

…ility should be 22 Dinar Umeshkumar More considered as `in connection with transfer’, which expression is wide than that of the `transfer’. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Bradford Trading Company (P) Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 222 (Madras) holding that the amount paid for removing encumbrances and settlement of claim is expenditure incurred in connection with transfer of a capital asset deductible u/s.48(1) of the Act. In the light of the above, it is held that the value of flat of 405 sq.ft. to be allotted in the new building should be accordingly reduced from the full…

Sh. Baljeet Singh Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4209/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Dandey, Sr.DR
Section 48

…following case laws to support his plea: i) Delhi High court in Kuldeep Singh (12/08/2014) ii) Kolkata ITAT in Satyabrata Dey (14/05/2013) iii) Delhi High Court in Eagle Theatres 205 Taxman 449 iv) Bombay High Court in 190 ITR 56 v) Madras High Court in 261 ITR 222 3.4 Apropos the second issue of Rs 19,28,859/-, the Ld AR submitted that since the matter was old and the cost of improvement was genuinely incurred, just for want of specific documentary evidence/s, the AO cannot reject it where it has been expressly submitted that said cost was incurred in year of acquisition of land i.e. in financial year 2…

Durga Kumari Bobba, Bangalore vs. DCIT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 172/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raosmt.Durga Kumari Bobba, No.15/1,2,3, Kadambari Farm, Sonnappanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore-562157. … Appellant Pan:Aadpb5139 N Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2) Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 48(2)

…le of shares is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for transfer and therefore clearly allowable u/s 48(2) of the Act. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bradford Trading Co. P.Ltd.(261 ITR 222)(Mad). He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.(66 ITR 622) for the proposition that ‘full valuation of consideration’ cannot be construed as a market value but as a price bargained by the parties to the sale. 6.2 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative vehement…

M/S. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…operty would have been impossible. 5.5 In this regard, he made reference to the following judgments: 1. Gopeenath Paul & Sons and another vs. DCIT 278 ITR 240(Cal) 2. CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal 190 ITR 56 (Cal) 3 CIT vs. Bradford Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. 261 ITR 222 (Mad) & 4. CIT vs. Abrar Alvi 247 ITR 312 (Bom.) 6. Regarding payment made to the sales tax department to the tune of ` 97,49,342/- to secure/raise the attachment made by the sales tax department, it is submitted that there was a further charge over the property by the Sales tax department. Since there was an outstanding due towards sales ta…

Sivanandha Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…operty would have been impossible. 5.5 In this regard, he made reference to the following judgments: 1. Gopeenath Paul & Sons and another vs. DCIT 278 ITR 240(Cal) 2. CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal 190 ITR 56 (Cal) 3 CIT vs. Bradford Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. 261 ITR 222 (Mad) & 4. CIT vs. Abrar Alvi 247 ITR 312 (Bom.) 6. Regarding payment made to the sales tax department to the tune of ` 97,49,342/- to secure/raise the attachment made by the sales tax department, it is submitted that there was a further charge over the property by the Sales tax department. Since there was an outstanding due towards sales ta…

DCIT - 20(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.B. Engg. Works, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)

…diture incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in the cases CIT vs Venkatraman 137 ITR 846 (Mad), CIT vs Naozar Chenoy 234 ITR 95 (AP), CIT vs Abrar Alvi 247 ITR 313 (Born) and CIT vs Bradfrod 261 ITR 222 (Madras), for the same proposition. In view of these submissions, it was argued that the Assessing Officer was not justified in determining the Short Term Capital Gain at Rs.3,56,00,000/-. 4.3. Before us, Ld. Departmental Representative has drawn our attention on the relevant portion of the assessment order, and argued that no activities have be…

CIT v. Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (261 ITR 222) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax