How many judgments cite CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.?

82 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (66 ITR 622), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 48, Section 143(3), Section 115JB, Section 1956, Section 1962.

CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.

66 ITR 622Supreme Court of India1967#1397 most cited

What is CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. authority for?

The 'full value of consideration' for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or its predecessor, Section 12B of the 1922 Act), means the actual price bargained for and received or accrued by the parties. It does not refer to the market value or any notional value of the asset transferred.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. · 66 ITR 622 · Section 48 · Section 12B · full value of consideration · actual consideration · market value · capital gains · transfer of capital asset · valuation of shares · section 45 · income tax act

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 48 Section 143(3)Section 115JB Section 1956 Section 1962 Section 45 Section 10(34)

Issues it is cited on

full value of consideration section 48 transfer of capital asset valuation of shares section 50c section 50 date of transfer section 45 fair market value reasoned order long term capital gain section 12

Judgments citing CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI vs. BHARAT KALIA, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 295/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

…ny other value unless specified. There are other decisions supporting this issue. A few of them are as follows: M/s. Suguni Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, (ITA No. 582/Hyd/2015, for the AY 2010-11)-decision dated 20.11.2015 (a) CIT V/s. George Henderson (66 ITR 622)-SC (b) CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.(1973 AIR 989) SC (c) Reliance Communications Infrastructures V/s CIT (34 SOT 245)- Mum (d) Morarjee Textiles Ltd. V/s. ACIT (ITA 1979/Mum/2009, for AY 2005-06)-decision dated 10.5.2013 (e) Nariman Point Building Services & Trading P. Ltd. V/s. CIT(ITA No.798/M/2011, for AY 2006-07)-decision dated 25.7.201…

THE INDRA COMPANY LIMITED(AS SAUMYA TRADE & FISCAL SERVICES P. LTD. MERGED INTO THE INDRA CO. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 12(3),, KOLKATA

ITA 2038/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

…ere accepted but the share price was adopted as listed and indexation was also not allowed. Reliance was placed upon the provision of section 48 of the Act and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) CIT Vs. George Handerson & Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) and (ii) CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC), decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in (iii) Arjun Malhotra Vs. CIT (2018) 92 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) (2018) 403 ITR 354 (Delhi) and the decision of the Tribunal in (iv) ACIT Vs. Manoj Arjun Menda 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0167 (Bang-Trib) in support of the claim that the full val…

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 45Section 47Section 47A(4)Section 48Section 50BSection 56

…r aforesaid view that 'full value of consideration' used in Sec. 48 cannot be construed as the 'market value' of the asset on the date of transfer is fortified by two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court viz. (i). CIT v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 622 and (ii). CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgments had observed that the expression 'full value of the consideration' does not mean the 'market value' of the asset transferred, but it shall mean the price bargained for by the parties to the transaction. We thus in terms of our aforesa…

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 250(6)Section 50C

…at between the parties and not the fair market value thereof. On behalf of the revenue it was contended otherwise. 13. Mrs. Suri, firstly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, West v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 where section 12B of the 1922 Act fell for consideration. Section 12B of the 1922 Act as it was in force on April, 1, 1947 read as under:- "Section 12-B of the Income Tax Act as it was in force on April 1, 1947 provided as follows: "12-B. (1) Capital Gains.— The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Capital gains' in respect of any p…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/273/2012HC Telangana18 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A

…ed in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 27. Insofar as the tax on capital gain is concerned, reliance is placed on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- George Henderson and Co. Ltd. reported in (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) while dealing with the case of - - 53 sale of shares at the rate of less than market value of share held as under: It is manifest that the consideration for the transfer of capital asset is what the transferor receives in lieu of the asset he parts with, namely, money or money’s worth and, therefore, the very asset tran…

SMART INFORMATION WORLDWIDE INC,CHENNAI vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 330/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Smart Information Worldwide Inc. Dcit बनाम/ 49 Sixth Main Road, International Taxation -2(2) Vs. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-8497-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Ravichandran (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 48Section 50CSection 50D

…n a commercial transaction could not be substituted by the valued determined by Ld. AO. The case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gillander Arbuthnot & Co. (87 ITR 407) supports the case of the assessee. Similarly in CIT vs George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (66 ITR 622), it was held that full value of consideration is the full sale price actually paid. It was further observed that the legislatures made distinction between expressions full value of consideration and fair market value of capital asset transferred. Similarly in CIT vs Sivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 61), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that since…

SMART INFORMATION WORLDWIDE INC,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 329/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Smart Information Worldwide Inc. Dcit बनाम/ 49 Sixth Main Road, International Taxation -2(2) Vs. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-8497-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Ravichandran (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 48Section 50CSection 50D

SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK (HUF),NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 85/NAG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.M. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 288ASection 68

…u/s.147 read with section 143(3). Hence, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law. 3. The order passed by Assessing Officer is against the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court in the case reported in 66 ITR 622, 87 ITR 407, 215 Taxman 153, 81 DTR 33 and 309 ITR 233 respectively. 4. The Assessing Officer has not followed guideline prescribed by Supreme Court and Bombay High Court in the cases reported in 259 ITR 19 and 296 ITR 96 respectively. The assessing Officer has immediately passed the order within a day from supply of objection instead of 4 week ti…

SHIVI HOLDINGS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-23(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshivi Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, G-16, Marina Acade, Circle-23(1), Connaught Circus, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco2664H

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Asish Chandra Mohanty, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…justments on a notional basis can be made in sale consideration of the shares sold by the assesee company. In this regard, we have referred to your goodself the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. George Henderson And co. ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) and CITvs. Gillanders Arbuthonot and Co., Ltd (1973) 87 Shivi Holdings Pvt. Ltd ITR 407 (SC) and also the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nilofer I. Singh-309 ITR 233 (Del) and Dev Kumar Jain vs. ITO & ANR (2009) 309 ITR 240 (Del)" 9. The contention of the assessee has been examined The shares that have been sold…

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…• The Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Attilli N Rao, 252 ITR 880 in the context of full price realised for the purpose of computation of capital gains. • CIT vs. N M A Mohammed Haniffa 247 ITR 66 (Mad). • CIT vs. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. 66 ITR 622 (SC). • CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I Singh 309 ITR 233 (Del). • Smt D Zeenath vs. ITO 413 ITR 258 (Mad). 15.12 The decisions relied upon by the Revenue were rebutted by the assessee's counsel, that all those were cases relating to mortgage, and that the agreement between the assessee and the purchaser clearly showed that the retention money was neith…

NEARBUY PTE.. LTD,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT (INTL TAX) CIRCLE 3(3) (1) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1607/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)

…s not justified in confirming the same. Accordingly, he submitted that the addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted. In support of his arguments, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the following case laws:- (a) CIT vs. George Henderson and Co Ltd (1967)(66 ITR 622)(SC), wherein it was held that the expression “full consideration” in sec. 12B(2) of 1922 Act cannot be construed as having a reference to 5 M/s. Nearbuy Pte Ltd market value of asset transferred but expression only means full value of thing received by transferor in exchange for capital asset transferred by him. (b) CIT vs. M/s B Arunkumar & Co…

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

ITA 894/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…rds 'full value of consideration', The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court at page 237 as under: "This controversy has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC), the very expression 'full value of consideration' was under consideration of the Supreme Court in the context of the provisions of the Indian IT Act, 1922. The provisions of s. 12B of the 1922 Act pertain to capital gains. Sub-s. (1) was in parimateria to s. 45(1) of the present Act and sub-s. (2) of s. 12B of the 1922 Act was in parimateria…

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

ITA 379/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 48Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…words 'full value of consideration', The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court at p. 237 as under: "This controversy has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC), the very expression 'full value of consideration' was under consideration of the Supreme Court in the context of the provisions of the Indian IT Act, 1922. The provisions of s. 12B of the 1922 Act pertain to capital gains. Sub-s. (1) was in parimateria to s. 45(1) of the present Act and sub-s. (2) of s. 12B of the 1922 Act was in parimateria…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 673/ASR/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv., Pradeep

Section 69

…sessee-firm in its account and the sale deeds is not the full consideration or the actual price received by the assessee for the transfer of shops was the under-stated price. v) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Handerson & Company Limited 66 ITR 622 has observed that full value of consideration for which the sale, exchange or transfer of the capital asset is made appearing in section 12B of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding to the present section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961), does not mean the market value of the asset transferred but the price bargained for by the parties to the…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 672/ASR/2014[201-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv., Pradeep

Section 69

THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, JAMMU vs. M/S. HORIZON BUILDCON PVT. LTD,, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 671/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv., Pradeep

Section 69

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 ACIT, M/s. Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, RMZ Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN : AABCT 0087 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Rajan Vora, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal by…

M/S.R.S.RANGADAS vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITTA/406/2005HC Telangana19 Oct 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

…ing made. Interpretation of expression “full value of the consideration received or accruing” had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal and Another versus George Henderson and Company Limited, [1967] 66 ITR 622 (SC) in which pari materia provision in the form of Section 12B of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was examined and interpreted. In the said case, shares had been transferred for consideration of Rs.136/- per share when the market value on the date of transfer was Rs.620/- per share. The Assessing Officer had treated the difference of Rs.484/- per…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by

Section 133(6)Section 37

…s did not find any consideration received over and above the amount disclosed by the assessee and in such a case CIT Vs. Shivakami Co Pt Ltd 159 ITR 71 is applicable. He also stated relying on Hon'ble Apex Court Judgement in CIT Vs. George Henderson & CO Ltd. 66 ITR 622 that full value consideration does not mean the market vale but the price bargained by the parties. He also relied on CIT Vs K.P. Verghese 131 FIR 597 to support this view. 3.6. In such a circumstance kind attention is invited to the valuation report dated 26.03.2010 submitted by the assessee. The Valuation report elaborates the reason for adoptin…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ING VYSYA BANK LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/221/2015HC Karnataka08 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 260Section 263

…arties to the sale. 21. The ITAT has recorded that the terms of Compromise indicated that the payment of Rs.2.66 Crores was in connection with the transfer of Capital 12 127 ITR 810 13 (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) I.T.A No.221/2015 18 asset. We have also perused the portion of the compromise terms extracted in the ITAT's order. It is stated therein that parties had amicably agreed upon certain terms and the a…

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5