CIT v. Gulab Chand

GYANENDRA BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ITA Nos. 136 & 138/2004 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5. + ITA 136/2004 GIRISH BANSAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sabharwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Chopra and Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rahul…

GIRISH BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ITA Nos. 136 & 138/2004 Page 1 of 23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5. + ITA 136/2004 GIRISH BANSAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sabharwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Chopra and Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate for Mr. Rahul…

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX DELHI & ORS vs. B.K.BHAGAT

…the purchaser and was taxable under Section 10(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) as receipt of casual and non recurring nature, exceeding Rs.5,000/-. He relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in CIT versus Gulab Chand, (1991) 192 ITR 495. The assessee had specifically raised and submitted before the Assessing Officer that tenancy rights were capital in nature and could not be taxed as a casual receipt. The Assessing Officer rejected the said contention holding that surrender of tenancy rights was not taxable/chargeable under Section 45 of the Act and, therefore, has to be…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEERA CHATTERJEE

…judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Shiv Charan Singh versus CIT, (1984) 149 ITR 29. 3. The Assessing Officer treated Rs.1 crore as income taxable under Section 10(3) following the decision of Allahabad High Court in CIT versus Gulab Chand, (1991) 192 ITR 495 for the following reasons:- (i) The respondent assessee was not a tenant. (ii) The amount received was not a capital receipt but a casual and non-recurring income under Section 10(3) of the Act. 4. On appeal filed by the respondent assessee, CIT(Appeals) deleted the said addition holding that the amount received was towards su…

Date of order: 9th November, 2011 vs. ASHA DALMIA

…of the Act and not under the head “Capital Gains”. He accordingly held that the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Charan Singh versus CIT, (supra) was not applicable while the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT versus Gulab Chand, (1991) 192 ITR 495 was applicable. 7. CIT (Appeals) in his order dated 3rd September, 1996 examined the question of tenancy rights and whether the respondent assessee was a tenant. He referred to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, concept of statutory tenant etc. and held that the respondent assessee was in fact a tenant and the consideration/…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEERA CHATTERJEE

…judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Shiv Charan Singh versus CIT, (1984) 149 ITR 29. 3. The Assessing Officer treated Rs.1 crore as income taxable under Section 10(3) following the decision of Allahabad High Court in CIT versus Gulab Chand, (1991) 192 ITR 495 for the following reasons:- (i) The respondent assessee was not a tenant. (ii) The amount received was not a capital receipt but a casual and non-recurring income under Section 10(3) of the Act. 4. On appeal filed by the respondent assessee, CIT(Appeals) deleted the said addition holding that the amount received was towards su…