CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd.

66 ITR 622Supreme Court of India1967#1396 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.

82

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

Issues it is cited on

full value of considerationsection 48transfer of capital assetvaluation of sharessection 50csection 50date of transfersection 45fair market valuereasoned orderlong term capital gainsection 12

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

Smt Durga Kumari Bobba vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Appeal is allowed in

ITA/662/2016HC Karnataka04 Jul 2022

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

Section 260Section 48Section 48(1)

…and 'fair market value of the capital asset transferred' and it is provided that if certain conditions are satisfied as mentioned in the first proviso to section 12B(2), 1 (1973)87 ITR 407 (SC) 2 (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) 8 the market value of the asset transferred, though not equivalent to the full value of the consideration for the transfer, may be deemed to be the full value of the consideration. To give rise to this fiction the two conditions of the first proviso are: (1) that the transferor was directly or indirectly connected with the transfe…

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…Assessing Officer cannot substitute the sale consideration by fair market value in the absence of any such provision under the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CTT v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd, [1967] 66 ITR 622 and CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407 (SC). 17. However, the Assessing Officer did not agree with the submission of the assessee and held that the fair market value of the shares is to be substituted for sale consideration and thereby made the addition of Rs. 57,90,33,060/-. His detailed reasonings can be summarized as under: 24…

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

…Assessing Officer cannot substitute the sale consideration by fair market value in the absence of any such provision under the Act. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CTT v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd, [1967] 66 ITR 622 and CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407 (SC). 17. However, the Assessing Officer did not agree with the submission of the assessee and held that the fair market value of the shares is to be substituted for sale consideration and thereby made the addition of Rs. 57,90,33,060/-. His detailed reasonings can be summarized as under: 24…

M/S. Asaria Lalji Vador, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Asaria Lalji Vador v. Office of PCIT – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 PAN: AABPV0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department by : Ms. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing : 27.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Sarojini M Kushe

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/475/2016HC Karnataka01 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 48Section 50CSection 50D

…y revolves around the determination of full value of consideration. The expression ‘full value of consideration’ has been dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West V/s. George Henderson And Co. Ltd. [(1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC)] as under: - 12 - “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 transferred or parted with cannot be the consideration for the transfer. It follows that the express…

Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6531/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 143

…ction having come to the statute on 01-04-2018, would not be applicable to the impugned assessment year. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs George Anderson & Co Ltd (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC). 9 ITA 6531/Mum/2017 12. The learned departmental representative, in addition to submissions made at the time of hearing, has also filed a written submission. The submissions of the learned departmental representative can be summarised, as under:- • The assessee continued to buy shares of TTK in financial year 2010-11 at huge premium, in sp…

Mahesh Vishnu Pashankar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune

ITA 429/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 45

…the term ‘full value of consideration’ received, accrued as a result of transfer of the capital asset. The term Fair Market Value had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Henderson & Co., Ltd reported in 66 ITR 622 (SC) wherein it was held that the term “full value" means the whole price without any deduction whatsoever and it cannot refer to the adequacy or inadequacy of the price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. The ratio of this decision was subsequent…

Vishnu Pundalik Pashankar, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune

ITA 428/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 45

…the term ‘full value of consideration’ received, accrued as a result of transfer of the capital asset. The term Fair Market Value had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Henderson & Co., Ltd reported in 66 ITR 622 (SC) wherein it was held that the term “full value" means the whole price without any deduction whatsoever and it cannot refer to the adequacy or inadequacy of the price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. The ratio of this decision was subsequent…

Amit Vishnu Pashankar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune

ITA 427/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 45

…the term ‘full value of consideration’ received, accrued as a result of transfer of the capital asset. The term Fair Market Value had come up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. George Henderson & Co., Ltd reported in 66 ITR 622 (SC) wherein it was held that the term “full value" means the whole price without any deduction whatsoever and it cannot refer to the adequacy or inadequacy of the price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. The ratio of this decision was subsequent…

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…exchange of assets between parties. The Tribunal also held that the share in superstructure developed by the developer constitutes consideration for transfer of land in the hands of the land owner. 3.26 The Supreme Court in CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd 66 ITR 622 answering this question held that in cases of 17 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. exchange of asset, it is the value of the asset / thing received or accrued [asset that ‘comes in’] to the transferor that should be reckoned as the full value of consideration. The argument that market value of the transferred capital asset [asset that ‘goes o…

M/S My Personal Health Record Express (I) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly complete the assessment. Resultantly, the ground no. 1 to 6 raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1296/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito-10(2)(4), M/S My Personal Health 213, 2Nd Floor, Record Express (I) Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. बिधम/ Gursheesh, 7Th Floor, 29, M. K. Road, Vs. Presidency Society, 7Th Ns Mumbai-400 020 Road, Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai-400 049 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Mumm39711A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Shri Jasmine Amalsadvala, Ars By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman (): The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, Mumbai, Dated 31.01.2020 For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla, DR
Section 143(2)

…. He submitted that the valuation of the software should be based on ‘Full value of consideration’. For the purpose of full value of consideration, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vrs. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC). 11. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 12. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We notice that assessee has developed a software ‘CONNECT’ at the request of its holding company and thus software was developed by the assessee prior to Assessment Year 2011-12 and asses…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…he price bargained for and agreed to between the parties to the arrangement (ie the actual price at which the shares were sold). In this regard, we place reliance, on following judgments which support the aforesaid transfer: • CIT v George Henderson & Co Ltd (66 ITR 622) (SC) • GIT v Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co (87 ITR 407) (SC) • K.P. Varghese v. /TO [19811131 ITR 597 (SC) • CIT v. Shivakami Company P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC) • CITv. P. Suryanaryana [1973] 88 ITR 321 (Mad) • CIT v.Smt. Nandini Nopany [1998] 230 ITR 679 (Cal) • CITv. G.C. Sen Gupta [1996] 220 ITR 254 (Gau) 10.5 Further, in this regard, your Ho…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Manoj Arjun Menda, Bangalore

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

ITA 1707/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.V.Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 133(6)

…on for the purpose of calculating the long term capital gains, the assessee preferred Sri.Manoj Arjun Menda. an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of George Henderson & Co. Limited [66 ITR 622 (SC)] and other judicial pronouncements held that there is no provision under the Income-tax Act empowering the A.O. to refer the matter for valuation in relation to transfer of a capital asset, being transfer of shares. Accordingly, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition ma…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Shri.Manoj Arjun Menda, Bangalore

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

ITA 1710/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.V.Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 133(6)

…on for the purpose of calculating the long term capital gains, the assessee preferred Sri.Manoj Arjun Menda. an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of George Henderson & Co. Limited [66 ITR 622 (SC)] and other judicial pronouncements held that there is no provision under the Income-tax Act empowering the A.O. to refer the matter for valuation in relation to transfer of a capital asset, being transfer of shares. Accordingly, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition ma…

Dr H Krishna vs. The Deputy Commissioner Income Tax

In the result, we do not find

ITA/541/2014HC Karnataka17 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.541 OF 2014 BETWEEN: DR. H. KRISHNA S/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS KAVERI NURSING HOME NO.1132, 3RD MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR MANDYA-571401. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHYTHANYA K.K. ADV.,) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, NO.55/1 SHILPASHREE BUILDING 1ST FLORR, OPP.STERLING TALKIES VISHWESWARANGAR, MYSORE-570008. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V.…

Universal Medicare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

ITA 4418/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Shah AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 254(1)Section 50B

…it was not possible to compute “full value of consideration”. 22. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai [156 ITR 509 (SC)] and in CIT vs. Gorge Henderson & Co. Ltd. [66 ITR 622 (SC)] wherein it was held that absence of quantifiable consideration result in failure of the assessee for charging capital gain tax. Accordingly, if contention of AO accepted then following the aforesaid ratio of Hon’ble Apex Court, full value of consideration not being determinable, the Capital Gain accruing on account of Slum sale was not det…

Sunil Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5829/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblesunil Miglani Vs Dcit Kj-2, Kavi Nagar Central Circle New Delhi Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)Section 54F(1)(b)

…vii. Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO (2011) 16 taxmann.com 357 (Jaipur) viii. Gyan Chand Batra vs. ITO [2010] 6 ITR(T) 147 (Jaipur) ix. Raj Babbar vs. ITO (2013) 29 taxmann.com 11 (Mumbai Trib.) x. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 622 (SC) xi. CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2008) 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC) 5 xii. ITO vs. Manjit Singh [2010] 128 TTJ 82 (Chandigarh) (UO) xiii. CIT, Panji vs. V. S. Dempo Company Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC) xiv. CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 281 ITR 210 (Bom. HC) xv. CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau. HC) Be…

Devendra Kumar Shroff, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(2), Kolkata

ITA 158/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: "ीजे. सुधाकररे"डी, लेखासद"यएवं/And"ीऐ. ट". वक","यायीकसद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ion because such deduction was impermissible in the light of earlier Hon’bleKerala High Court’s decision in the case of AmbatEchukuttyMenonVs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 880 and the Hon’bleSupreme Court decision in the case of CITv. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 622. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court observed that the Tribunal appeared to have been proceeding in wholly 9 Devendra Kumar Shroff.AY- 2008-09 unnecessary direction of statutory provisions relating to the deduction from the full value of the consideration by resorting to section 48 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that Kerala Financial Corporat…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. Shri. Raj Arjuna Menda, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1720/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 48Section 50C

…at Rs.3,33,23,661/- on page 10 of the Assessment Order. He submitted that as against this working done by the AO, learned CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. George Henderson & Co. Ltd., 66 ITR 622 and of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Wintac Ltd. in ITA No.910/2006 dated 19.09.2013, copy available on pages 16-29 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee. He submitted that learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting this addition. Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT(A) and these two judgments fo…

Anita Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5828/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Vanshika Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)Section 54F(1)(b)

…vii. Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO (2011) 16 taxmann.com 357 (Jaipur) viii. Gyan Chand Batra vs. ITO [2010] 6 ITR(T) 147 (Jaipur) ix. Raj Babbar vs. ITO (2013) 29 taxmann.com 11 (Mumbai Trib.) x. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 622 (SC) xi. CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2008) 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC) xii. ITO vs. Manjit Singh [2010] 128 TTJ 82 (Chandigarh) (UO) xiii. CIT, Panji vs. V. S. Dempo Company Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC) xiv. CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 281 ITR 210 (Bom. HC) xv. CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau. HC) 6. Th…