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.

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

…re that could be taxed under Section 10(3) of the Act. That provision was not a charging provision but an exemption provision. He submitted that this course was not available to the Revenue as was explained by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. 273 ITR 1 (SC), in which it upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court in V.D. Vakhaskar (supra). He also referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in C. Kamala v. CIT (supra) to point out that in similar circumstances, the receipt of money upon cancellation of the auction sale by the Court was held not be in the nature of capital gains. H…

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

…re that could be taxed under Section 10(3) of the Act. That provision was not a charging provision but an exemption provision. He submitted that this course was not available to the Revenue as was explained by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. 273 ITR 1 (SC), in which it upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court in V.D. Vakhaskar (supra). He also referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in C. Kamala v. CIT (supra) to point out that in similar circumstances, the receipt of money upon cancellation of the auction sale by the Court was held not be in the nature of capital gains. H…

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)

…t by using cost inflation index in reverse manner should have been allowed. That provisions of sec. 49(a) were applicable to the facts of the case,that in case of tenancy capital gain was not taxable.He referred to the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd.(273 ITR 1),Tara Agencies (292 ITR444) and B.Srinivasa Shetty (128 ITR294) 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.Undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee had sold half of the tenancy right of a property that was acquired by his late father,that the property was acquired before the year 1981,that the property was so…

Udaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…ad, Dadar, Mumbai which are placed at pages 9-27 of paper book filed with the Tribunal. The assessee-HUF submitted that tenancy rights is a capital asset as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. D P Sandu Bros. Chembur Private Limited (2005) 273 ITR 1(SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Weaving Mills Co. Private Limited v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 265 (Bom. HC). The assessee-HUF also submitted that in the case of third co-owner Mr. Dushyant P Babode(HUF) with respect to the same transaction being 1/3 co- owner, the CIT(A) has held the transfer of tenancy right as transfer of long…

Sujaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7490/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…ad, Dadar, Mumbai which are placed at pages 9-27 of paper book filed with the Tribunal. The assessee-HUF submitted that tenancy rights is a capital asset as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. D P Sandu Bros. Chembur Private Limited (2005) 273 ITR 1(SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Weaving Mills Co. Private Limited v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 265 (Bom. HC). The assessee-HUF also submitted that in the case of third co-owner Mr. Dushyant P Babode(HUF) with respect to the same transaction being 1/3 co- owner, the CIT(A) has held the transfer of tenancy right as transfer of long…

Topsgrup Electronics Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2115/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amit Shuklam/S. Topsgrup Electronic Systems Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3) Ltd. (Previsously Tops Sequipment Ltd.) Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 5, Royal Palms Golf & Country Club Vs. Mumbai 400020 Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400065 Pan - Aaact3291K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.M. LalaFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Shah
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ceived, accrued or arising 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. vs. CIT 249 ITR 265 was upheld by the Apex Court in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros, Chember (P) Ltd. 273 ITR 1. .......... 42. .......... As pointed out above, the issue of shares at a premium is on Capital Account and gives rise to no income. The submission on behalf the revenue that the shortfall in ALP as computed for the purposes of Chapter X of the Act gives rise to income is misplaced. The ALP is meant to determine the real value of the transaction en…

DCIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Solvay Specialities India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1702/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia & Shri HemanFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand – CIT, DR

…ceived, accrued or arising 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. vs. CIT 249 ITR 265 was upheld by the Apex Court in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chember (P) Ltd. 273 ITR 1. 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 section 2(24) unless it is chargable to tax as capital gains under…

Cox & Kings Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1354/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri R.R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, DR and Shri
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92A(3)

…ceived, accrued or arising 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. vs. CIT 249 ITR 265 was upheld by the Apex Court in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chember (P) Ltd. 273 ITR 1. 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 section 2(24) unless it is chargable to tax as capital gains under…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Ashokkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4986/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y have been used differently in different sections of Income-tax Act, it follows that the 2 carry different meanings. 1.5 (a) There is no cost of acquisition of leasehold rights - Cadell Weaving - 249 ITR 265 (Born) at page 270 - under the heading "Facts" and 273 ITR 1 (SC) (b) Section 55(2)(a) only refers to "tenancy rights" , cost of acquisition of which is deemed to be 'nil' and does not refer to leasehold rights (c) Leasehold rights not mentioned in the said section (d) Basis of claim - refer letter to AO dated 8.8.2011 - page nos 62 to 66 of paper book (e) Leasehold rights - no cost no capital amount paid, o…

ITO 14(1)3, Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar M Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4985/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y have been used differently in different sections of Income-tax Act, it follows that the 2 carry different meanings. 1.5 (a) There is no cost of acquisition of leasehold rights - Cadell Weaving - 249 ITR 265 (Born) at page 270 - under the heading "Facts" and 273 ITR 1 (SC) (b) Section 55(2)(a) only refers to "tenancy rights" , cost of acquisition of which is deemed to be 'nil' and does not refer to leasehold rights (c) Leasehold rights not mentioned in the said section (d) Basis of claim - refer letter to AO dated 8.8.2011 - page nos 62 to 66 of paper book (e) Leasehold rights - no cost no capital amount paid, o…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3709/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y have been used differently in different sections of Income-tax Act, it follows that the 2 carry different meanings. 1.5 (a) There is no cost of acquisition of leasehold rights - Cadell Weaving - 249 ITR 265 (Born) at page 270 - under the heading "Facts" and 273 ITR 1 (SC) (b) Section 55(2)(a) only refers to "tenancy rights" , cost of acquisition of which is deemed to be 'nil' and does not refer to leasehold rights (c) Leasehold rights not mentioned in the said section (d) Basis of claim - refer letter to AO dated 8.8.2011 - page nos 62 to 66 of paper book (e) Leasehold rights - no cost no capital amount paid, o…

Bhartkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3)

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3708/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y have been used differently in different sections of Income-tax Act, it follows that the 2 carry different meanings. 1.5 (a) There is no cost of acquisition of leasehold rights - Cadell Weaving - 249 ITR 265 (Born) at page 270 - under the heading "Facts" and 273 ITR 1 (SC) (b) Section 55(2)(a) only refers to "tenancy rights" , cost of acquisition of which is deemed to be 'nil' and does not refer to leasehold rights (c) Leasehold rights not mentioned in the said section (d) Basis of claim - refer letter to AO dated 8.8.2011 - page nos 62 to 66 of paper book (e) Leasehold rights - no cost no capital amount paid, o…

Ashokkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y have been used differently in different sections of Income-tax Act, it follows that the 2 carry different meanings. 1.5 (a) There is no cost of acquisition of leasehold rights - Cadell Weaving - 249 ITR 265 (Born) at page 270 - under the heading "Facts" and 273 ITR 1 (SC) (b) Section 55(2)(a) only refers to "tenancy rights" , cost of acquisition of which is deemed to be 'nil' and does not refer to leasehold rights (c) Leasehold rights not mentioned in the said section (d) Basis of claim - refer letter to AO dated 8.8.2011 - page nos 62 to 66 of paper book (e) Leasehold rights - no cost no capital amount paid, o…

Bharatkumar Maneklal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1250/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 55(2)(a)

…y have been used differently in different sections of Income-tax Act, it follows that the 2 carry different meanings. 1.5 (a) There is no cost of acquisition of leasehold rights - Cadell Weaving - 249 ITR 265 (Born) at page 270 - under the heading "Facts" and 273 ITR 1 (SC) (b) Section 55(2)(a) only refers to "tenancy rights" , cost of acquisition of which is deemed to be 'nil' and does not refer to leasehold rights (c) Leasehold rights not mentioned in the said section (d) Basis of claim - refer letter to AO dated 8.8.2011 - page nos 62 to 66 of paper book (e) Leasehold rights - no cost no capital amount paid, o…

Sri. Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar, Bagalkot vs. ITO, Bagalkot

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

ITA 731/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…had been held for more than 36 months and that the gains arising from the transfer of her rights under the agreement in April, 1983, constituted long-term capital gain. The Hon’ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. 29. In CIT Vs. Sandhu Brothers 273 ITR 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the tenancy right is a capital asset, the surrender of the tenancy right is a "transfer" and the consideration received therefore a capital receipt within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act, has not been questioned before us and must in any event be taken to be concluded by the decision of this Court…

M/S. Abb Ltd., Bangalore vs. The Addl. CIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/BANG/2010[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Sr. Counsel

…o pointed out by him that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (supra) has since been set aside and remanded to the Hon’ble High Court for fresh consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 273 ITR 15 and 56(SC). It was his submission that allocation of the consideration for transfer of business by the transferee/purchaser of the business cannot be disregarded and it has to be held that the consideration of Rs.43,16,62,000/- is towards transfer of “Technical Know-How”. He Page 17 of 45 reiterated the argument that “Technical know-how” does not…

Commissioner of Income Tax - VIII, New Delhi vs. Gulab Sundri Bapna

Appeal is disposed of

ITA-198/2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

…fore, it would not be applicable to the case in hand. 7. Decision of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Shiv Charan (supra) was not accepted as a correct legal ratio and was overruled by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 (SC). This was a case relating to Assessment Year 1987-88 and, therefore, Section 55(2) as amended by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1st April, 1995 was not applicable. It was held that tenancy right gets acquired with effect from a particular date and it would be possible that it was acquired at a cost and this was a question of fact. Reference…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Gulab Sundri Bapna

Appeal is disposed of

ITA - 198 / 2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

…fore, it would not be applicable to the case in hand. 7. Decision of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Shiv Charan (supra) was not accepted as a correct legal ratio and was overruled by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 (SC). This was a case relating to Assessment Year 1987-88 and, therefore, Section 55(2) as amended by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1st April, 1995 was not applicable. It was held that tenancy right gets acquired with effect from a particular date and it would be possible that it was acquired at a cost and this was a question of fact. Reference…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Appeal is disposed of

ITA/198/2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 18Section 4Section 45(5)(b)Section 48(2)Section 6

…fore, it would not be applicable to the case in hand. 7. Decision of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Shiv Charan (supra) was not accepted as a correct legal ratio and was overruled by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 (SC). This was a case relating to Assessment Year 1987-88 and, therefore, Section 55(2) as amended by Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 1st April, 1995 was not applicable. It was held that tenancy right gets acquired with effect from a particular date and it would be possible that it was acquired at a cost and this was a question of fact. Reference…

Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for our

ITA/585/2008HC Delhi26 Nov 2008
For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal with Mr Sanjeev RajpalFor Respondent: Mr Sriram Krishna

…. 3. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the tenancy right was a capital asset, particularly, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs D P Sandhu Brothers Pvt Ltd: (2005) 2008:DHC:3128-DB ITA 585-08 Page 3 of 7 273 ITR 1 and that the profit on transfer of the said asset would be chargeable to tax under the head “capital gains”. It was contended that the cost of acquisition of the said capital asset (the tenancy right) in the hands of the assessee was nil. However, substantial improvements to the extent of Rs 33,37,847/- were made in respect of the said capit…