CIT v. H.H Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji

162 ITR 93High Court1986#10233 most cited

What is CIT v. H.H Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji authority for?

The court held that when the cost of acquisition of an asset cannot be ascertained, Section 55(3) of the Income-tax Act mandates that the cost is to be taken as the market value on the date of acquisition. Therefore, capital gains are not excluded solely on the basis that the asset's value is unascertainable.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji · 1986 · 162 ITR 93 · Section 55(3) · cost of acquisition · unascertainable value · market value · capital gains

Also reported as

25 Taxmann 66

Judgments citing CIT v. H.H Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji

Yogesh Das, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 983/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…so distinguished the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Manoharsinhji P. Jadeja's case (supra) as it was based on the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji. [1986] 162 ITR 93/25 Taxman 66 (MP), which has already been distinguished in the full bench decision in the case of CIT v. Raja Malwinder Singh (Supra). (vi) It would be appropriate to reproduce here the relevant extracts of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Thakur Dwara Shri Krishanji Maharaj Handiyaya Vs CIT (Supra) as under: "3.…

Pramila Gajanan Bhoir, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4245/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4241/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Draupadibai Gajanan Bhoir The Income Tax Officer, Near Chattri Bunglow, Ward 3(2), Kalyan Vs. Kalyan (W), 421301 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. ANKPB8964F Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4242/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Pradeep Gajan…

Pratibha Gajanan Bhoir, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4241/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Draupadibai Gajanan Bhoir The Income Tax Officer, Near Chattri Bunglow, Ward 3(2), Kalyan Vs. Kalyan (W), 421301 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. ANKPB8964F Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4242/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Pradeep Gajan…

Prakash Gajanan Bhoir, Thane vs. ITO WD- 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4243/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4241/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Draupadibai Gajanan Bhoir The Income Tax Officer, Near Chattri Bunglow, Ward 3(2), Kalyan Vs. Kalyan (W), 421301 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. ANKPB8964F Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4242/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Pradeep Gajan…

Pradeep Gajanan Bhoir, Thane vs. ITO WD- 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4242/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4241/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Draupadibai Gajanan Bhoir The Income Tax Officer, Near Chattri Bunglow, Ward 3(2), Kalyan Vs. Kalyan (W), 421301 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. ANKPB8964F Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4242/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Pradeep Gajan…

Draupadibai Gajanan Bhoir, Kalyan vs. ITO WD3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4241/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4241/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Draupadibai Gajanan Bhoir The Income Tax Officer, Near Chattri Bunglow, Ward 3(2), Kalyan Vs. Kalyan (W), 421301 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. ANKPB8964F Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4242/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2005-06) Pradeep Gajan…

Shri Gopi Ram Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-4, Jaipur

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1311/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…scertaining the cost does not arise. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mandhar Singh Ji P. Jadeja 281 ITR 19 as well as Thakur Dwara Shri Krishanju Maharaj Handiyaya, Barnala vs. CIT 162 ITR 93. He has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of CIT vs. Pashu Mohammed Zainuddin 142 TTJ 17. Thus the ld. AR has submitted the land is an ancestral land as accepted by the AO in the assessment order and therefore, when there is no cost of acquisition by the forefathers of the assessee then the capital gain cannot be chargeable to…

Udai Singh Rathore, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 818/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S. L.Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)

…assumption that where market value cannot be ascertained, capital gain cannot be applied, is not correct being against the statutory scheme. Similarly, the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji [1986] 162 ITR 93/25 Taxman 66 cannot be accepted. The said judgment also does not give effect to the mandate of section 55(3) which provides for a situation where the value of the asset acquired could not be ascertained. If the market value can be ascertained, it has to be taken to be equal thereto and if the value cannot be ascertained, it has to be equal to the…

Ram Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 522/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 54F

…taining the cost does not arise. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs. Mandhar Singh Ji P. Jadeja 281 ITR 19 as well as Thakur Dwara Shri Krishanju Maharaj Handiyaya, Barnala vs. CIT 162 ITR 93. He has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of CIT vs. Pashu Mohammed Zainuddin 142 TTJ 17. Thus the ld. 7 ITA 522 To 528/JP/17_ Ram Lal Sharma and others Vs. ITO AR has submitted the land is an ancestral land as accepted by the AO in the assessment order and therefore, when there is no cost of acquisition by the forefathers…

Shib Narayan Kshettry -HUF, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-38(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 55(2)

…to such a situation. The Full Bench High Court did not follow its earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of CIT v. Amrik Sing [2008] 299 ITR 1 (P&H) and a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. H.H Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji [1986] 162 ITR 93 (MP) which were given on the basis of the principle laid down in B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC). The Full Bench also held that even in a case where the cost of acquisition cannot be ascertained, section 55(3) statutorily prescribes the cost to be equal to the market value on the date of acquisition. This being the position, capital g…

CIT v. H.H Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji (162 ITR 93) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax