CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.

87 ITR 407Supreme Court of India1973#2277 most cited

What is CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. authority for?

The "full value of the consideration" for computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (or Section 12B(2) of the 1922 Act), means the price actually bargained for and agreed to by the parties, not the market value of the asset transferred. In a sale transaction involving a price, the market value of the consideration is not relevant.

51

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. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. · 87 ITR 407 · Section 48 · Section 12B(2) · full value of consideration · capital gains · market value · agreed price · actual consideration · fair market value · computation of capital gains

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 48Section 12B of 1922 ActSection 12B(2) of 1922 ActSection 142(1)Section 142(1) of Income Tax ActSection 143(2) of Income Tax ActSection 143(3) of Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 49full value of considerationtransfer of capital assetsection 48section 47valuation of sharessection 50section 45section 50ccolourable devicefair market valuedate of transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.

LATE RAJESHAM RAGI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 776/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.776/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Late Ragi Rajesham, The Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Vs. Pin – 505 001. Telangana. Karimnagar. Pan Aaxpr4513J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Rv Nageshwar Sharma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri RV Nageshwar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 148

…TA.No.776/Hyd./2025 the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that even as per the partition no where it is claimed that the land in question belongs to the HUF. He has relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407 (SC); Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay vs. CIT [2003] 2. 260 ITR 491 (Bom.); 3. CIT vs. Gita Duggal [2013] 357 itr 153 (Del.-HC); 4. ITO vs. C. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC); 5. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); 7.1. The learned DR submitted that when the assessee has received the payment of Rs.5 lakhs under the said Developm…

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

…on 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 value of the consideration received or accrued as appearing in section…

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

…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 aforesaid observations are persuaded to subscribe to the view of the CI…

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

…he parties could then by merely stating an incorrect price in the sale deed avoid the tax on capital gains altogether. 18. Mrs. Suri then relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (1973)87 ITR 407 where the Supreme Court held:- "Now let us see what is the impact of Section 12-B (2) on that transaction? Under that provision, the amount of capital gains has to be computed after making certain deductions from the full value of the consideration for which the sale is made. What exactly is the meaning of the expression "full value of the conside…

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

…ing the sales value that had actually been received. There was no relationship between the assessee and Norwest. Reference was made to various judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gillander Arbuthnot & Co. (87 ITR 407) holding that full value of the consideration is the consideration agreed to be paid and not the market value. The assessee also cited various other subsequent decisions taking the same view. The assessee also submitted that in case of unlisted companies, the only statutory basis for valuation was provided under Rule 11UA which has been prescribed…

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

…ing the sales value that had actually been received. There was no relationship between the assessee and Norwest. Reference was made to various judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gillander Arbuthnot & Co. (87 ITR 407) holding that full value of the consideration is the consideration agreed to be paid and not the market value. The assessee also cited various other subsequent decisions taking the same view. The assessee also submitted that in case of unlisted companies, the only statutory basis for valuation was provided under Rule 11UA which has been prescribed…

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

…d 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 time as prescr…

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…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 subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407. Therefore, the legal position that emerges from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra is that "full value of consideration" does not mean market value of the capital asset which is the subject matter of the transfer. Originally, the parliament has enacted the provisions of sec.52 in the I.T. Act, 1961, in order to enable the asses…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…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 subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407. Therefore, the legal position that emerges from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra is that "full value of consideration" does not mean market value of the capital asset which is the subject matter of the transfer. Originally, the parliament has enacted the provisions of sec.52 in the I.T. Act, 1961, in order to enable the asses…

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)

…ereto: The expression “full value of consideration received on transfer”, has been explained in two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case ofCIT v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd [1967] 66 ITR 622 and in the case of CTT v.Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407 in which it has been held 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. It has been further held that the consideration for the transfer of a capital asset is what the transferor receives in lieu of the asse…

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

…rice 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 was followed in Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta versus Gillanders Arbuthnot and Company, [1973] 87 ITR 407 (SC). 23. The aforesaid two decisions did not examine the proviso to Section 12B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which was incorporated as Section 52 of the Act, i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the first proviso was numbered as sub-section (1) with insertion of sub-section (2) with effect from 1st April, 1964. However, Section 52…

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)

…value of the consideration' 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…

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)

…ion 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 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 (i) The assessee has very mini…

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)

…ion 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 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 (i) The assessee has very mini…

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

…66 ITR 622 held as under; The expression ‘full value of the consideration’ cannot be construed as the market value but as price bargained for by the parties to the sale. vi. The same SC again reiterated the position in the case of Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., 87 ITR 407 confirming that in the case of sales, all that one has to see is what is the consideration bargained for. vii. Once again the SC in the case of K P Varghese, 131 ITR 597 held as under; ‘A fair and reasonable construction of section 52(2) would be to read into it a condition that it would apply only where the consideration for the transfer is under…

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

…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 subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC). Therefore, the legal position that emerges from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra is that “full value of consideration” does not mean market value of the capital asset which is the subject matter of the transfer. Originally, the parliament has enacted the provisions of Sec.52 in the I.T. Act, 1961, in order to enable the…

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

…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 subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC). Therefore, the legal position that emerges from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra is that “full value of consideration” does not mean market value of the capital asset which is the subject matter of the transfer. Originally, the parliament has enacted the provisions of Sec.52 in the I.T. Act, 1961, in order to enable the…

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

…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 subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC). Therefore, the legal position that emerges from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra is that “full value of consideration” does not mean market value of the capital asset which is the subject matter of the transfer. Originally, the parliament has enacted the provisions of Sec.52 in the I.T. Act, 1961, in order to enable the…

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

…ties 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 Honour’s attention is invited to the rectification ord…

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4999/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…and evidence in his hands, which suggest that the consideration exceeded the amount shown in the document. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. George Henderson Co Ltd(1967) 66 ITR 622(SC), CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co (1973) 87 ITR 407(SC), K.P. Varghese v. ITO(1981) 131 ITR 597(SC), CIT V. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) and CIT Vs. Godawari Corpn. Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC ), wherein it has been held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains.…

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3