How many judgments cite CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.?

51 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (87 ITR 407), spanning 2015 to 2026.

CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 48, Section 12B of 1922 Act, Section 12B(2) of 1922 Act, Section 142(1), Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act.

87 ITR 407Supreme Court of India1973#2254 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.

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

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 49 full value of consideration transfer of capital asset section 48 section 47 valuation of shares section 50 section 45 section 50c colourable device fair market value date of transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.

Prerak K. Goel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 7107/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar

Section 48Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2010-11) Mr. Prayas K. Goel Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-10, 1101, Eben Ezer, Tagore Road, Mumbai (Respondent) Nr. Poddar School, Santacruz West, Mumbai (Appellant) PAN : AAKPG5038Q : (A.Y : 2010-11) Mr. Prerak K. Goel Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-10, 1001, Eben Ezer, Tagore Road, Mumbai (Respondent) Nr. Poddar School, Santacruz West, Mumbai (Appellant) PAN : AAKPG8954B : (A.Y : 2010-11) Pushpa Goel Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-10, 1201, Eben Ezer, Tagore Road, Mumbai (Re…

Prayas K. Goel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 7106/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar

Section 48Section 54

Kamlesh Goel (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 10, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 is dismissed

ITA 1863/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar

Section 48Section 54

Alpex Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negialpex Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aaacn 7738H ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak D. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…further elaboration and in-fact the same is fully supported by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO, 131 ITR 597 (SC), CIT v. George Henderson and Co. 9 Ltd., , 66 ITR 622,(SC) and CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., 87 ITR 407(SC). Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, the stand of the PCIT is accepted that the correct value of Preference shares has not been made and the correct value would have been higher than the stated sale consideration, even then, the resultant surplus could not have been brought to tax as per the scheme of computation of capital gains con…

Cyfast Enterprises P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

Section 50B

…l value of the thing received by the transferor as a consideration for transfer of undertaking. This case is thus of no help to the Revenue. Similar is the position regarding the other judgment relied by the ld. DR in CIT Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co.[(1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC)] in which it has been held that where the first proviso to section 12B(2) is not attracted, full value means, sale price actually received. These two cases support the proposition that in the absence of substitution of full value of consideration of the capital asset with the fair market value of the asset, it is impermissible to deviate from…

Aditya Birla Telecom Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax 10(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 341/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 391Section 394Section 45Section 47

…f consideration received / accrued to the assessee i.e., or fair market value of the asset on the date of transfer. Reliance placed on (i) KP Varghese vs ITO (131 ITR 597) (SC) (ii) CIT vs George Henderson & Co., (66 ITR 622) (iii) Gillianders Arbuthnot (SC) (87 ITR 407) (iv) Rupee Finance & Management (P) Ltd., vs ACIT (22 SOT 174) as approved by Bombay HC. 27. Learned AR further contended that deemed consideration is only applicable under section 50C and section 50D which is not the case in the matter. 28. As per learned AR demerger of telecom undertaking is not a slump sale. Pre-requisite condition of slump sa…

ACIT, Meerut vs. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Meerut

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

ITA 3936/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…no power to replace the value of consideration agreed between the parties. In support of this proposition reliance has been placed on the following decision: i. “Nilofar Singh 309 ITR 233 (Del.); ii. George Hanorson 66 ITR 622 (SC); iii. Gillanders Arbuthonot 87 ITR 407 (SC). 5.3. The ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has accepted the sale consideration received by the assessee as genuine, as it is evident from the fact that while computing the income of the assessee the Assessing Officer has adopted the net no separate addition has been made. 6. In the present case, the assessee had claimed a…

ACIT, Meerut vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Meerut

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

ITA 1538/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Divya Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue Dismissed and Cross

ITA 4315/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Mohsin Alam, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153C

…ITA NO. 4315/Del/2011 & CO No. 355/Del/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4315/Del/2011 A.Y. : 2007-08 ACIT, Central Circle-03, VS. Smt. Divya Jain, Room No. 355, 3rd floor, C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Jhnadewalan Extension, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) New Delhi – 110 055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. No. 355/Del/2011 (In ITA No. 4315/Del/2011) A.Y. : 2007-08 Smt. Divya Jain, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-03, 3rd C-215, Vivek Vihar, Delhi Room No. 355, floor, (PAN: AECPJ4086M) Jhnadewalan Extension, New…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sirajuddin Qureshi, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5009/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. M.P.Rastogi, Adv

Section 147Section 148

…e Ld.CIT(A) has rightly relied on the following decisions and deleted the addition. i. CIT vs. Ms.Sushila Mittal (2001) 250 ITR 531 (Del) ii. KP Verghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) iii.George Handerson & Co. 66 ITR 622 (SC) iv. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. 87 ITR 407 (SC) v. Raman Bhattathripad 196 ITR 671 (Kerala) vi. CIT vs. Lionel Edwards Ltd. (1980) 121 ITR 416 viii. ITAT Ahemdabad in the case of Rakesh Ji Shah vs DCIT 53 TTJ 267 viii. Delhi ITAT in the case of DCIT Central-2 vs. Sh.Vinay Kochhar 2008 TIOL 113 (Del.) 8.2. In view of the above discussion, in the absence of any material evidence, to establ…

Venus Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5335/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year: 2009-10 Venus Financial Services Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, (Now Merged With Avantha Realty Ltd.) Circle 17(1), Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv3258L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent By: Shri J.P. Chandrekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 .07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 :09.2015 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1) That The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandrekar, Sr. DR

…ssing Officer has no power to replace the value of consideration agreed between the parties. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Nilofer Singh – 309 ITR 233 (Delhi); 2. George Handorson – 66 ITR 622 (S.C); 3. Gillanders Arbuthonot – 87 ITR 407 (S.C); 4. Morarji Textile Ltd. – ITA No. 1979/Bom/2009; 5. MGM Benefit Trust – ITA No. 316/Bum/2009 dt. 26.11.2009; 9. The Learned AR submitted further that the authorities below have overlooked the auditor’s report of Pioneer Ltd. clearly showing the value of shares as on 31.3.2008 at Rs.0.17 per share. In this regard, he referred page No. 25…