CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF)

95 ITR 656High Court1974#21662 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF)

Jaikishin Atalram Rupani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23 (2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1

ITA 6856/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 54Section 54F

…d. (supra). The Court rejected the argument that if the right to purchase was given up and the vendor was relieved of his obligation, there would be no capital gain. The Court approved of what had been said in the case of CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) [1974] 95 ITR 656 (Bom.), in regard to the essential features of a transaction of relinquishment, namely, that the property in which the interest was relinquished continued to exist; it continued to be owned by some person or persons even after the transaction of the relinquishment and the interest of the person relinquishing his interest in the property was given…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Narayan Mandyam Veerabudhi, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR

Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 54F

…td. (supra). The court rejected the argument that if the right to purchase was given up and the vendor was relieved of his obligation, there would be no capital gain. The court approved of what had been said in the case of CIT V.Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) (1974) 95 ITR 656 (Bom.), in regard to the essential features of a transaction of relinquishment, namely, that the property in which the interest was relinquished continued to exist; it continued to be owned by some person or persons even after the transaction of relinquishment and the interest of the person relinquishing his interest in the property was given up o…

Shri Girish P. Rupani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is

ITA 1028/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanshri Girish P. Rupani Acit-23(1) Room No. 122, 1St Floor, Makhija Chambers, 196, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Vs. Pan: Aaapr6723P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54F

…. ( supra). The Court rejected the argument that if the right to purchase was given up and the vendor was relieved of his obligation, there would be no capital gain. The Court approved of what had been said in the case of CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) [1974] 95 ITR 656 (Bom.), in regard to the essential features of a transaction of relinquishment, namely, that the property in which the interest was relinquished continued to exist; it continued to be owned by some person or persons even after the transaction of the relinquishment and the interest of the person relinquishing his interest in the property was given…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S the Diamond Company Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 326/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)

…on in a property is either given up, abandoned, or surrendered; but the property in which interest is relinquished continues to exist and the property continues to be owned by some person or persons after the transaction of relinquishment – CIT v (HUF) [1974] 95 ITR 656 (Bom). A relinquishment takes place when the owner withdraws himself from the property and abandon his rights thereto. It presumes that the property continues to exist after the relinquishment – CIT v. Rasiklal Maenklal (HUF) [1980] 177 ITR 198 (SC) On the other hand, extinguishment refers not to extinguishment of asset itself but to extinguishmen…