CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal

190 ITR 56High Court1991#2584 most cited

What is CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal authority for?

Payments made by an assessee to release property from an encumbrance or settle disputes, which are essential for a sale transaction to materialize, are allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act for computing capital gains. Such expenditure either reduces the full value of consideration or is deductible from it.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal · Section 48 deduction · capital gains computation · expenditure to remove encumbrance · payment to settle dispute · full value of consideration · property transfer expenses · essential for sale to materialize · perfection of title

Sections most often in play

Section 48Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 37Section 48(1)Section 120(4)(b)

Issues it is cited on

relinquishment of rightsection 48full value of considerationcost of improvementtransfer of capital assetright to receivemistake apparent from recordsection 45date of transferlong term capital gainssection 34admission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal

Capt. Avinash Chander Batra, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7407/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7407/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Capt. Avinash Chander Dy. Cit., Range, 2(3), बनाम/ Batra, Room No. 556, 5 Th Floor, V. C/O Kucheria & Associates Aayakar Bhavan, 59, Jolly Maker No. 2 Mumbai-400 021 Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpb3384M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48

…essee. Thus as per the assessee , the expenditure is therefore only related to buying and selling of shares and to no other activity whatsoever. The assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal (1991)190 ITR 56(Bom.) , Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Abrar Alvi, (2001)247 ITR 312(Bom. HC) and also judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in V A Vasumathi v. CIT (1980)123 ITR 94 (Kerala). The assessee submitted that the expenses incurred were mainly on portfolio management services paid to portfolio manager and the assessee was havin…

Ram & Company, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 24(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 3050/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Sanjay Garg & Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.3050/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Ram & Company Principal Commissioner Of C/O., Shankarlal Jain & Associates Vs. Income Tax-30 Income Tax Office, 12, Engineer Building, Bandra Kurla Complex, 265, Princess Street Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 051. Pan No.Aaafr 1894 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant By Shri S.L. Jain Respondent By Shri Rajesh R. Prasad-Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2016 O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja, Am: Present Appeal Is Against The Order Passed By Principle Cit U/S. 263 Of The Act. Perusal Of The Impugned Order Shows That It Has Been Passed On Following Two Issues;- I. The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction Of Transfer Expenses U/S. 48 Of The Act, Aggregating To Rs.17,64,350/-. According To Ld.Cit, The Assessing Officer Has Not Examined Whether These Expenses Are Allowable U/S. 48 Of The It Act And, Therefore, Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Considered As Erroneous In So Far As Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

Section 263Section 48

…nses were done for the purposes of enabling the assessee to make transfer of the property sold by it during the year under consideration. On this issue we find that the position of law is in favour of the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal (190 ITR 56), Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that 4 ITA No.3050/M/15-Ram & Co. any amount the payment of which is absolutely necessary to effect the transfer will be an expenditure covered u/s. 48. It has been further held that if an expenditure is necessary to remove an encumbrance without which transfer could not be effected, such expenditure is allow…

DCIT - 20(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.B. Engg. Works, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)

…of the building to M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. Reliance was in this regard, placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay high Court in the case CIT vs Shakuntala Kantilal 190 ITR 56, wherein it was held that any expenditure incurred by an assessee to effect the transfer will be expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in the cases CIT vs Venkatraman 137 ITR 846 (Mad), CIT vs Naozar Chenoy 234 ITR 95 (AP), CIT vs Abrar Alvi 247 ITR 313 (Born) and CIT…

ITA 1287/2011 vs. Eagle Theatres

ITA/1287/2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011
Section 260A

…nd on whether the expenses incurred by the assessee and other co-owners constitute cost of improvement under section 48(ii). The said point is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 598. On eviction of the hutment dwellers from the land in question, the value of the land increases and, therefore, the expenditure incurred for having the land vacated would certainly amount to cost of improvement. Accordin…

CIT vs. Eagle Theatres

ITA - 1287 / 2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011
Section 260A

…nd on whether the expenses incurred by the assessee and other co-owners constitute cost of improvement under section 48(ii). The said point is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 598. On eviction of the hutment dwellers from the land in question, the value of the land increases and, therefore, the expenditure incurred for having the land vacated would certainly amount to cost of improvement. Accordin…