CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.

273 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2005#719 most cited

What is CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. authority for?

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

140

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. · surrender of tenancy rights · capital asset · transfer · capital receipt · section 45 · section 48 · section 55(2) · cost of acquisition · capital gains tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 14Section 48Section 56Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

profit split methodsection 54esection 115jcsection 55(2)section 54ecminimum alternate taxsection 80ib(10)section 55section 40(a)(ii)section 115jasection 92fsection 32(1)(ii)

Judgments citing CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…32 b) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 249 ITR 266 (Bom) which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs D.P.Sandu Bros (Chembur) Pvt Ltd reported in 273 ITR 1 (SC) c) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mehboob Productions Pvt Ltd vs CIT reported in 106 ITR 758 (Bom) 7 M/s. Batliboi Limited d) Decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Universal Radiators vs CIT reported in 201 ITR 800 (SC) 3.10. We find that the ld AO did not appreciate the contentions of the assessee a…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…ipts. The income receipts are liable to tax u/s 4 of the Act, but capital receipts are not liable to tax except the capital gain. He relied up on 57 ITR 36 (SC) CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd., 249 ITR 265 (Bom) Caddle Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 273 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu Brothers Pvt. Ltd. , 195 ITR 877 (SC) Padmaraje R. Kadambande vs. CIT, 57 ITR 36 (SC) CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. 6.1 The nature and character of receipts is determined with reference to the purpose for which the payments are made. He relied up on 48 ITR 222 (SC) P.H. Dwivecha vs. CIT Page 84 of 155 53 ITR 261…

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Shaw Wallace and Company: 2 Comp Cases 276 (SC) ii) Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC) iii) Cadell Weaving Mills Company Ltd vs. CIT 249 ITR 266 (Bom) [affirmed by SC in 273 ITR 1] The Ld. AR further submitted that the nature of the foreign exchange gain shall depend upon the nature of the transaction – if the transaction of remittance is for revenue account purpose, then, exchange gain/ loss shall be revenue income/ gain, whereas if the transaction of remittance is for a capital account purpose, then, the gain/ loss is on…

ITO 5 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Millionaire Commodiities P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3268/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2012-13 The Ito-5(2)(3), M/S.Millionaire Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai A-32, Haji Allarakha Building, Vs. 3Rd , 9Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai [Pan : Aahcm3086G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.G.PansariFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Mehta &
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 56(1)Section 68

…on capital account transaction can be subjected to tax as Income. This is settled by the decision of this Court in Cadell Weaving Mill Co. v. CIT [2011] 249 ITR 265/116 Taxman 77 was upheld by the Apex Court in CIT v. D.P Sandu Bros. Chember (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713. This Court has in Cadell Weaving Mills Co. (supra) inter alia, observed as under:— 'It is well settled that all receipts are not taxable under the Income tax Act. Section 2(24) defines "income". It is no doubt an inclusive definition. However, a capital receipt is not income under section2(24) unless it is chargeable to tax as capit…

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is

ITA 1448/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra Towers, Worli, Mumbai Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005 – 2006 Addl Cit Circle 2(2)(2), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai Mahindra Towers,Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan Aaacm3025E Vs (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harish Mahajan -ARFor Respondent: Shri A Mohan CIT-DR
Section 40ASection 40A(9)Section 92C

…2 taxmann.com 15 (Karnataka High Court), Grindwell Norton Limited in ITA No. 528/Mum/2012 & 5800/Mum/2013), General Electrodes & Equipments Ltd. (155 ITR 787), CIT vs. Bhavnagar Bone and Fertilizer Ltd. (166 ITR 316), D.P. Sandu Brothers Chember (P) Ltd. (273 ITR 1) & Alchemic P. Ltd. (130 ITR 168) (Guj.). 58. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 59. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO rejected the claim of assessee on the ground that sale tax is revenue expenditure and not of loan…

Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5)., Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the two judgments of this court " 15. We have also considered the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in para no.1…

Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5)., Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1536/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the two judgments of this court " 15. We have also considered the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in para no.1…

Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5)., Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1535/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the two judgments of this court " 15. We have also considered the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in para no.1…

Mr. Sunil Goyal, Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

ITA 719/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri R. Santhanam, Adv. and Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA and Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 28

….2010 7. Submission dated 29.01.2010” Page 33 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. (C.2) The assessee also field a compilation of cases relied upon, containing copies of the following orders: “1. CIT VS D.P. SANDHU BROS. CHEMBUR (P) LTD. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (S.C.) 2. CIT VS. MEDIWORLD PUBLICATION (P) LTD. (2011) 11 TAXMANN.COM 374 (DELHI), 244 CTR 387 (DELHI) 3. MRS. HAMI APSI BALSARA VS. ACIT (2010) 126 ITD 100 (MUM. TRIB.) 4. HULAS RAHUL GUPTA VS. CIT (2012) 24 taxmann.com 191 (Delhi), & 17 (Trib.) 336 (Delhi). 5. ACIT VS. DR.B.V. RAJU [2012] 18 taxmann.com 188 (Hyd. Trib.) (SB), & 144 TTJ 5…

The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam vs. Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 55/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

The DCIT Cen-Circle, Kottayam vs. Smt.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 54/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

Smt.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O vs. The DCIT Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 35/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

Smt.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O vs. The DCIT Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 34/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

Smt.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O vs. The DCIT Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 33/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

Smt.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O vs. The DCIT Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 32/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

Carmel Educational Trust, Pathanamthitta vs. DCIT, Cen- Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 310/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 31/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

Carmel Educational Trust, Pathanamthitta vs. DCIT, Cen- Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 309/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

Carmel Educational Trust, Pathanamthitta vs. DCIT, Cen- Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 308/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

Carmel Educational Trust, Pathanamthitta vs. DCIT, Cen- Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 307/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…as to be computed. In this case, the assessee stated that nothing of these things would cover the relinquishment of trusteeship and in the absence of aspecific provision, the income shall be taken as Nil. 11.7In the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P.) Ltd. (273 ITR 1),theargument before the Supreme Court was arising out of the return of income of the assessee. The amountreceived by the asessee on surrender of tenancy right, whether liable to capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was involved in that appeal before the Supreme Court. There was a lease agreement entered into in the year 1959…

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. (273 ITR 1) — Cited in 140 Judgments | BharatTax