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.

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

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

ITA 306/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…

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

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

ITA 305/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…

Carmel Educational Trust, Pathanamthitta vs. DCIT, Kottayam

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

ITA 304/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…

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 30/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…

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/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…

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 28/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…

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 27/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…

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

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

ITA 239/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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 ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam vs. Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor

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

ITA 238/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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 P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 213/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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…

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 210/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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…

ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nikhil S. Goklaney, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2542/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, DRFor Respondent: S/ Shri Hiro Rai
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 23Section 23(1)

…ed that the said receipt is not taxable at all. Or if taxable is taxable under the head Income from House Property. 6. We noted that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it is held that the tenancy right was a capital asset and surrender of tenancy right was a transfer and consideration received there from was a capital receipt within the meaning of section 45 of the Act. But Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not open for the department to impose tax on such capital receive by the assessee under a…

Bharat Serums and Vacciness Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 4701/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4701/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S. Bharat Serums & बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1) Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Vaccines Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 17Th Floor, Hoechst House, 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala & NiteshFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(3)Section 55(2)Section 55B

…is the subject matter ITA. No.5228/M/12 4701/M/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 of transfer, is not ascertainable. The principle laid down therein was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the context of tenancy rights in case of CIT Vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. (Chembur) Pvt. Ltd. 273 ITR 1) and CIT Addl. Vs. Ganapati Raju Jogi 200 ITR 612). In the present case the know-how under development is a self-generated asset of which the cost of acquisition cannot be ascertained, and therefore, the consideration for the transfer thereof cannot be brought to tax under the head „capital gains‟as the computation mechanism fails. 12. The CIT(A) h…

Shri Ashish Tandon, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1954/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 54FSection 55

…ed reliance of the assessee on Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment in the case of Cadell Wvg Mills Co Ltd Vs CIT [(2001) 249 ITR 265 (Bom)], which stands approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported as CIT Vs D P Sandhu Bros Chembur Pvt Ltd [(2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC)], the Assessing Officer observed that the issue adjudicated by Hon’ble Court was taxability of consideration against surrendering the tenancy rights which had no cost of acquisition but then in the present case the consideration paid was for a developed cost for which Rs 4,78,52,797 was invested by employer of the assessee. Similarly, assessee…

Shri Urmil D. Patel, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2915/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2009-10 Urmil D. Patel, C-19, The ITO, Meeraj Apartment, Ward-2(6), B/h Natubhai Centre, Gotri Vs Baroda-390007 Road, (Respondent) Baroda-390007 PAN: ACQPP6563K (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri T.P. Hemani, A.R. Date of hearing : 17-10-2018 Date of pronouncement : 30-10-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, arises from order of the CIT(A)- 5, Vadodar…

Rockline Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5125/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Rockline Developers P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(2) 801, Hubtown Solaris Mumbai Vs. N.S. Phadke Marg, Off. Teli Gali Andheri (E), Mumbai 400069 Pan – Aaacr4467F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member M/s. Rockline Developers P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(2) 801, Hubtown Solaris Mumbai Vs. N.S. Phadke Marg, Off. Teli Gali Andheri (E), Mumbai 400069 PAN – AAACR4467F Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Vimal Punamiya Respondent by: Ms. S. Padmaja Date of Hearing: 13.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 06.07.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the learned CIT(A)-21, Mumbai and it…

Sh. Ajay Goel, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…ase of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan,that income cannot fall beyond the five heads made under the act. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. 273 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which has not been excluded from the total income under the act only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been plac…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers and Contractors, Shimla

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 345/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…ase of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan,that income cannot fall beyond the five heads made under the act. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. 273 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which has not been excluded from the total income under the act only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been plac…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…ase of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan,that income cannot fall beyond the five heads made under the act. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. 273 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which has not been excluded from the total income under the act only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been plac…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…ase of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan,that income cannot fall beyond the five heads made under the act. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. 273 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which has not been excluded from the total income under the act only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been plac…