What is CIT v. Grace Collis authority for?

The term 'transfer' under Section 2(47) includes the relinquishment of a right to property that creates an interest in the property. However, the extinguishment of rights in shares, when occurring without a formal conveyance, does not attract capital gains.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Grace Collis?

58 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Grace Collis (248 ITR 323), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Grace Collis come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 35D, Section 40(a)(i), Section 80HHC, Section 143(3), Section 2(47), Section 28(iiid).

CIT v. Grace Collis (248 ITR 323)

M/S Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

…ibunal had erred in placing reliance on Rasiklal Maneklal while failing to consider the later and binding decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin v. Grace Collis and others5. The High 4 (1989) 177 ITR 198 : (1989) 2 SCC 454 5 (2001) 248 ITR 323 (SC) : (2001) 3 SCC 430 6 Court observed that where the shares of the amalgamating company were held as capital assets, the receipt of shares of the amalgamated company would constitute a “transfer” within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the I.T. Act, though such transfer would be exempt under Section 47(vii). However, in the alternativ…

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…Tax Act, 1961". This was noted by the Assessing Officer. However, the Ld. PCIT in his order has observed that the extinguishment of shares held by the assessee does not attract capital gain/loss. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Grace Collis [248 ITR 323] has clarified that extinguishment of rights in shares, without a conveyance, does not attract capital gains/loss. Consequently, the loss of Rs.12,12,27,550/- claimed under Section 45 is inadmissible. Settlement of Loan to KMFL: Further, also set off was claimed to the extent of Rs.29,95,00,000/- against the waiver of loan (foregoing the loan) w…

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Jt.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 267/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr DR & Sh

Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)Section 72

…nd similarly when squaring up was on expiry of the contract, it should be treated as extinguishment of rights in capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Grace Collis 248 ITR 323, had held that the definition of transfer in section 2(47) contemplates the extinguishment of the rights in a capital asset as distinct and independent of such extinguishment consequent upon the transfer. Thus, he held that on expiry of derivatives there was a transfer of a capital asset. He further observed that securities transaction tax have b…

Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd ( Formerly Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 5299/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)

…uld be allowed as a deduction since there was a transfer of capital asset. 21.12 Further in this connection the AR placed reliance on the following decisions: a. Kartikey Sarabhai vs. CIT (SC) (228 ITR 163) b. CIT vs. Grace Collis and Others (SC) (248 ITR 323) 21.13 The AR vehemently argued that additional shares/units were allotted to the appellant without making any payment and accordingly as per provisions of Section 55(aa) (i) and (iii) the cost of acquisition for original financial assets should be the ITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 ITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/M…

Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)

…7,070/-should be allowed as a deduction since there was a transfer of capital asset. 21.12 Further in this connection the AR placed reliance on the following decisions: a. Kartikey Sarabhai vs. CIT (SC) (228 ITR 163) b. CIT vs. Grace Collis and Others (SC) (248 ITR 323) 21.13 The AR vehemently argued that additional shares/units were allotted to the appellant without making any payment and accordingly as per provisions of Section 55(aa) (i) and (iii) the cost of acquisition for original financial assets should be the ITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 ITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 ITA No…

Murali Krishna Yenugula, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2347/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…be falling in the category of transfer for the purpose of bringing them in income-tax net under the Act. Mr. Murali Krishna Yenugula :: 16 :: 9. Further, after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collis and Others reported in (2001) 248 ITR 323 (SC), we are of the view that the AO in the first round of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2017 took the plausible view that the right to claim Specific Performance of the agreement/contract does creates right to property and as a consequence, relinquishment of such a right results in the transfer of interest in the property within the…

Nalapad Properties, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 1297/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, ITP &For Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 45

…008-09 itself. The A.O in the assessment order has canvassed his arguments based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Orient Trading Company v/s. CIT 224 ITR 371 and also in the case of CIT v/s Mrs. Grace Collis and others (2001) 248 ITR 323 (SC). The appellant submits that the facts and circumstances of the above cases are not identical and not squarely applicable since the facts are completely distinguishable. The decision in the above cases were rendered in the context of exchange of capital assets, being the shares surrendered in the scheme of merging process of two companies. Wh…

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…own case for assessment year 1995-96. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96 in appeal by the Revenue after placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Grace Collis, 248 ITR 323 has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. Thus, in view of uncontroverted findings of the Co- ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in the immediately preceding assessment year, ground No.8 in appeal by the Revenue is allowed.” 69. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tr…

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…own case for assessment year 1995-96. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96 in appeal by the Revenue after placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Grace Collis, 248 ITR 323 has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. Thus, in view of uncontroverted findings of the Co- ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in the immediately preceding assessment year, ground No.8 in appeal by the Revenue is allowed.” 69. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tr…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…own case for assessment year 1995-96. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96 in appeal by the Revenue after placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Grace Collis, 248 ITR 323 has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. Thus, in view of uncontroverted findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in the immediately preceding assessment year, ground No.8 in appeal by the Revenue is allowed.” 69. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tri…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…own case for assessment year 1995-96. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96 in appeal by the Revenue after placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Grace Collis, 248 ITR 323 has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. Thus, in view of uncontroverted findings of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in the immediately preceding assessment year, ground No.8 in appeal by the Revenue is allowed.” 69. Respectfully following the above decision and following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tri…

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 573/MUM/2007[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaniya Silk Mils Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 191 ITR 647. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee, after referring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collins v/s CIT [248 ITR 323] wherein held that extinguishment of the assets P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited itself is also covered by the term transfer which would result in Capital Gain. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after following the decision of the…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3055/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaniya Silk Mils Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 191 ITR 647. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee, after referring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collins v/s CIT [248 ITR 323] wherein held that extinguishment of the assets P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited itself is also covered by the term transfer which would result in Capital Gain. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after following the decision of the…

The DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2655/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaniya Silk Mils Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 191 ITR 647. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee, after referring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collins v/s CIT [248 ITR 323] wherein held that extinguishment of the assets P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited itself is also covered by the term transfer which would result in Capital Gain. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after following the decision of the…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaniya Silk Mils Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 191 ITR 647. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee, after referring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collins v/s CIT [248 ITR 323] wherein held that extinguishment of the assets P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited itself is also covered by the term transfer which would result in Capital Gain. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after following the decision of the…

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesse are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1933/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri CharuFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Bandi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaniya Silk Mils Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 191 ITR 647. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee, after referring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collins v/s CIT [248 ITR 323] wherein held that extinguishment of the assets P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 & ITA No. 3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 A.Y. 1999-2000 & 2000 -2001 Bajaj Auto Limited itself is also covered by the term transfer which would result in Capital Gain. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after following the decision of the…

M/S Flamingo Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above directions

ITA 64/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Flamingo Hotels P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1 Plot No.416 Gandhidham. Ward-2B Adipur-Kutch.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 2(47)Section 250(6)Section 45

…f the Act. For this interpretation, that on the destruction of the building the right in the building stood extinguished which tantamounted to transfer of building, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Grace Collis &Ors., 248 ITR 323. Accordingly, as per the AO, the assessee was not entitled to any claim of loss on account of destruction of the building in the impugned year. 5. The AO also looked into this aspect from the perspective of section 45(1A) of the Act, which deems transfer of asset destroyed or annihilated on receipt of insurance claim. Interpreting the said secti…

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj International P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed

ITA 8952/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 40Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “F” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 8952/Mum/2004 (A.Y. 1998-99) Vs. M/s. Bajaj Holdings & Investment DCIT, Range 3(1) Room No. 623 Ltd. 6th Floor (formerly known as Bajaj Auto Aayakar Bhavan Limited), Bajaj Finserv Corporate M.K. Road Office, Off. Pune-Ahmednagar Mumbai-400 020. Highway, Vimannagar, Pune-411 014. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 9564/Mum/2004 (A.Y. 1998-99) Vs. DCIT, Range 3(1) M/s. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd. Room No. 623 (formerly known as Bajaj Auto 6th Floor Limited), Bajaj Finserv Co…

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

…2] followed in Karthakaya Sarathai v. CIT [228 ITR 163]. 63. Before the Ld.CIT(A) assessee has fairly accepted that the issue under consideration is against the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grace Collins v. CIT [248 ITR 323] wherein it was held that extinguishment of the asset itself is also covered by the term “transfer” and would give rise to capital gains. Accordingly, Ld.CIT(A) held that surplus on redemption as liable to tax under the head “capital gain”. 64. Aggrieved revenue is in appeal before us, taxability of surplus on account of redemption of preference…

Allam Adavaiah, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 788/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…n 2(47) viz, extinguishment of any rights in the land. 47. In the context of the extinguishment of the rights in land the Assessee prays to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Grace Collins, 248 ITR 323 , wherein their lordships (in a three- member Bench) held as under; Section 2(47), read with section 47(vii), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains Transfer - Whether expression 'extinguishment of any rights therein' in section 2(47) (ii) is limited to such extinguishment on account of transfer - Held, no - Whether expression 'extinguishmen…

CIT v. Grace Collis

What is CIT v. Grace Collis authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Grace Collis

M/S Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Jt.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd ( Formerly Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

Murali Krishna Yenugula, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

Nalapad Properties, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

The DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

M/S Flamingo Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham.

The Dy CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj International P. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

Allam Adavaiah, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad