Gasper v. CIT

192 ITR 382Supreme Court of India1991#19657 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 28(ii)(e)

Judgments citing Gasper v. CIT

Vmd Enterprises P. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1123/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1123/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 153CSection 2(47)Section 28

…that compensation received is for relinquishment of right to obtain the property, which is included in the definition of transfer in relation to capital assets as per section 2(47) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Gasper v. CIT [1991] 192 ITR 382 (SC) has held that compensation for relinquishment of right in a property amounts to a capital receipt as the rights constitute a capital asset u/s. 2(14) of the Act. Similar view has been held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers [1990] 186 ITR 693 (Bom). The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT…

D.C.I.T., Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. Smt. Shikha Roy, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2020AY 2016-17
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54ESection 54F

…ein". 9.1. This judgment was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated This judgment was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated This judgment was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21/08/1991 reported in [1991] 192 ITR 382 (SC). 21/08/1991 reported in [1991] 192 ITR 382 (SC). 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. [2005] 142 Taxman 713 (SC) [2005] 142 Taxman 713 (SC), held as follows:- “Section 45 of the Income of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capi…

M/S. Stp Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 749/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, Kolkata M/S Stp Limited C/O. G.P. Agarwal & Associates, 7A, Kiran Shankar Ray Road, 2Nd Floor, Kol-1. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs6339M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Kothari, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…erefore, it does not necessarily mean that the property, which the assessee holds, must be his own. Any kind of property held by an assessee would come within the definition of 'capital asset'. From the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.Gasper v. CIT [1991] 192 ITR 382 and the Madras High Court in A.R.Krishnamurthy & A.R. Rajagopalan v. CIT[1982] 133 ITR 922/[1981] 6 Taxman 289, it is clear that transfer by way of lease is treated as transfer of a capital asset, on the principle that the lease creates an interest in the land and, therefore, to that extent, it extinguishes the right of the transferor. Therefore,…

Sri. Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar, Bagalkot vs. ITO, Bagalkot

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

ITA 731/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…y right is a "transfer" and the consideration received therefore a capital receipt within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act, has not been questioned before us and must in any event be taken to be concluded by the decision of this Court in A. Gasper Vs. CIT 192 ITR 382 (SC). Page 17 of 22 30. In the present case, the approach of the CIT(Appeals) appears to be that in the compromise decree, there is no reference to this sum of Rs.33 lakhs. However, on perusal of the receipt-cum-acknowledgement dated 27.6.2005, it becomes clear that sum of Rs.33 lakhs was given only for the assessee and his wife, giving up thei…

Gasper v. CIT (192 ITR 382) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax