CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF)

177 ITR 198Supreme Court of India1989#7881 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 28Section 28(iv)Section 45Section 47(vii)Section 49(1)(iii)(e)

Issues it is cited on

extinguishment of rightssection 269uarecord datesection 10(2)section 49section 39transferee companytransferor companysection 47section 53asection 53compulsory acquisition

Judgments citing CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF)

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

…essees. In doing so, it held that the Tribunal 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 Sec…

T.L.SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1596/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 13, (Old No. 1), V. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non-Corporate Circle -14, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Aepps-6766-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 2(47)

…ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing nor both things being money only the transaction according to Sec. 118 of the Transfer of Property Art 1882 is called an exchange." Further, it has been held in CIT vs RasiklalManeklal (1989) 177 ITR 198 202 (SC) that "An exchange involves the transfer of property by one person to another and reciprocally the transfer of property of that person to that first person. There must he a mutual transfer of ownership of one thing for the ownership of the other." The assessee's plea that exchange is a form of transfer is not disputed. As per Section 2(47…

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2205/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

….” ii. Write-off of investment results in relinquishment of shares in terms of Section 2(47) of the IT Act a. The term „relinquishment‟ has not been defined under the Act. Therefore, reliance is placed on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. RasiklalManeklal 177 ITR 198 for the purposes of definition of the term „relinquishment‟. The court defined relinquishment as follows: “A relinquishment takes place when the owner withdraws himself from the property and abandons his rights thereto. It presumes that the property continues to exist after the relinquishment.” b. Webster‟s Comprehensive Dictionary, internationa…

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2120/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

….” ii. Write-off of investment results in relinquishment of shares in terms of Section 2(47) of the IT Act a. The term „relinquishment‟ has not been defined under the Act. Therefore, reliance is placed on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. RasiklalManeklal 177 ITR 198 for the purposes of definition of the term „relinquishment‟. The court defined relinquishment as follows: “A relinquishment takes place when the owner withdraws himself from the property and abandons his rights thereto. It presumes that the property continues to exist after the relinquishment.” b. Webster‟s Comprehensive Dictionary, internationa…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

ITA/822/2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…reme Court in its earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v. Rasiklal ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 37 Maneklal (HUF), [1989] 177 ITR 198 (SC) which was decided in context of the Income Tax Act, 1922 ,when the relevant provision was different. Further, the issue as to whether the holding of shares was capital asset or stock-in-trade was not in controversy in the said case. In any event, subsequently, Supreme Court in Grace Collis and Others (supra) after examining the facts…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

ITA/961/2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…reme Court in its earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v. Rasiklal ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 37 Maneklal (HUF), [1989] 177 ITR 198 (SC) which was decided in context of the Income Tax Act, 1922 ,when the relevant provision was different. Further, the issue as to whether the holding of shares was capital asset or stock-in-trade was not in controversy in the said case. In any event, subsequently, Supreme Court in Grace Collis and Others (supra) after examining the facts…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 853 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020
Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v. Rasiklal 2020:DHC:2490-DB ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 37 Maneklal (HUF), [1989] 177 ITR 198 (SC) which was decided in context of the Income Tax Act, 1922 ,when the relevant provision was different. Further, the issue as to whether the holding of shares was capital asset or stock-in-trade was not in controversy in the said case. In any event, subsequently, Supreme Court in Grace Collis and Others (supra) after examining the facts…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 935 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020
Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v. Rasiklal 2020:DHC:2490-DB ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 37 Maneklal (HUF), [1989] 177 ITR 198 (SC) which was decided in context of the Income Tax Act, 1922 ,when the relevant provision was different. Further, the issue as to whether the holding of shares was capital asset or stock-in-trade was not in controversy in the said case. In any event, subsequently, Supreme Court in Grace Collis and Others (supra) after examining the facts…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

ITA - 961 / 2005HC Delhi07 Aug 2020
Section 260ASection 391Section 47

…earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay v. Rasiklal 2020:DHC:2490-DB ITA 822/2005 & connected matters Page 6 of 37 Maneklal (HUF), [1989] 177 ITR 198 (SC) which was decided in context of the Income Tax Act, 1922 ,when the relevant provision was different. Further, the issue as to whether the holding of shares was capital asset or stock-in-trade was not in controversy in the said case. In any event, subsequently, Supreme Court in Grace Collis and Others (supra) after examining the facts…

CARESTREAM HEALTH INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 826/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Carestream Health Inc Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Carestream Health Income Tax, Range-2(1)(1) India Private Limited Scindia House, M.M.Road Sunteck Centre Ballard Pier 1St Floor, Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 028 Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aaecc6050H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 48

…tion of shares , being a capital asset, by the ld AO. We find that the ld DR further stated that the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal supra also placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) reported in 177 ITR 198 (SC). But we find that this decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court was duly considered in yet another decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Grace Collis reported in 248 ITR 323 (SC). The relevant question in dispute before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was as under:- “3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri…

ANURAG TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2626/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpt6848P Assessee By : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D/SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member ITA No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAGPT6848P Assessee by : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an ap…

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

…he property or right received income arising in the property also not given to the purchaser, in such circumstances, it is not a transfer in terms of section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961. We also place reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) (177 ITR 198)(SC) wherein the apex court held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that there was neither an "exchange" nor a "relinquishment" and no capital gains arose from the transaction. An "exchange" involves the transfer of property by one person to another and reciprocally the transfer of property by that other to the first person. There must be…

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

…he property or right received income arising in the property also not given to the purchaser, in such circumstances, it is not a transfer in terms of section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961. We also place reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) (177 ITR 198)(SC) wherein the apex court held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that there was neither an "exchange" nor a "relinquishment" and no capital gains arose from the transaction. An "exchange" involves the transfer of property by one person to another and reciprocally the transfer of property by that other to the first person. There must be…

DCIT, CIR-12, KOLKATA, 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)

…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 extinguishment of holder’s right to the assets – CIT v. East India Charitable Trust [1994] 206 ITR 152/73 Taxman 380(Cal). Redemption of ITA No.326/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Cir-12 Kol. vs. M/s The Diamond Co. Ltd. Page 4 preference shares by a company; sq…