J.K. Kashyap v. ACIT

302 ITR 255High Court2008#7404 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)section 2(14)transferpersonbusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing J.K. Kashyap v. ACIT

DCIT, CIR, 4(2), AHMEDABAD vs. BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1965/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 54B

…f the Hon'ble High Courts:- i) CIT Vis Tate Services Lid (122 ITR 594. Bombay) I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 6 DCIT Vs. Shri Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel ii) CIT Vis. Surat Laxmi Devi Ratnani 296 ITR (393 MP) iii) J.K. Kashyap VN. ACIT (302 ITR 255 Delhi) As mentioned above, in all these cases, it has been held that a tight created by agreement to sale is an enforceable right, therefore, it is capital asset u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the findings of the A.O. that the appellant did not have any right in property as per section 2(14) of the Act is not found legally sustainable, hen…

DCIT, CIR.4(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. LALITBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1963/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 54B

…f the Hon'ble High Courts:- i) CIT Vis Tate Services Lid (122 ITR 594. Bombay) I.T.A Nos. 1963 & 1965/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 6 DCIT Vs. Shri Bharatkumar Babubhai Patel ii) CIT Vis. Surat Laxmi Devi Ratnani 296 ITR (393 MP) iii) J.K. Kashyap VN. ACIT (302 ITR 255 Delhi) As mentioned above, in all these cases, it has been held that a tight created by agreement to sale is an enforceable right, therefore, it is capital asset u/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the findings of the A.O. that the appellant did not have any right in property as per section 2(14) of the Act is not found legally sustainable, hen…

TREE HILL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

…there is a transfer by the assessee by way of relinquishment of rights in the assets of the firm. He also held that there is a transfer by way of extinguishment of rights, as a partner in the firm. The AO relied upon the decision in J.K. Kashyap v ACIT (2008) 302 ITR 255 (Del) which held that if an assessee relinquishes his rights in the property for a consideration, it amounts to transfer under section 2(47) of the Act and liable to capital gain tax under section 45 of the Act. 10. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that Sobha City held a piece of land and that the assessee had a share of…

ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 40, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 7189/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…d Tribunal in Smt. Girija Reddy V/s ITO (ITA No.297/Hyd/2012 23/05/2012) 129 ITR 244 16/02/1979) deal with a situation wherein one partner received share of goodwill which is not the case here. The case law of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in J.K.Kashyap V/s ACIT (302 ITR 255 2008) is a case of joint owners of certain property. Therefore, the case laws being relied upon by Ld. DR are not applicable to given factual matrix. 7. Finally, on the facts and circumstances, we hold that the compensation received by the assessee from existing partners for reduction in profit sharing ratio would not tantamount to Capital Gains…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5460/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…undertaken with the farmers. Relinquishment of ‘right’ would amount to ‘tranfer’ within the meaning assigned to the term under the provisions of sec. 2(47) of the Act. As per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. Kashyap vs. ACIT (2008) 302 ITR 255 (Delhi), “interest was ultimately relinquished by him in favour of a new vendee by virtue of agreement dated 26.09.1995 and the consideration received by him for relinquishing his rights in the property, thus attracted the provisions of sec. 45(1) making him liable to capital gains tax” this decision was re-emphasized by the jurisdictional High C…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5348/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…undertaken with the farmers. Relinquishment of ‘right’ would amount to ‘tranfer’ within the meaning assigned to the term under the provisions of sec. 2(47) of the Act. As per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. Kashyap vs. ACIT (2008) 302 ITR 255 (Delhi), “interest was ultimately relinquished by him in favour of a new vendee by virtue of agreement dated 26.09.1995 and the consideration received by him for relinquishing his rights in the property, thus attracted the provisions of sec. 45(1) making him liable to capital gains tax” this decision was re-emphasized by the jurisdictional High C…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…undertaken with the farmers. Relinquishment of ‘right’ would amount to ‘tranfer’ within the meaning assigned to the term under the provisions of sec. 2(47) of the Act. As per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. Kashyap vs. ACIT (2008) 302 ITR 255 (Delhi), “interest was ultimately relinquished by him in favour of a new vendee by virtue of agreement dated 26.09.1995 and the consideration received by him for relinquishing his rights in the property, thus attracted the provisions of sec. 45(1) making him liable to capital gains tax” this decision was re-emphasized by the jurisdictional High C…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…undertaken with the farmers. Relinquishment of ‘right’ would amount to ‘tranfer’ within the meaning assigned to the term under the provisions of sec. 2(47) of the Act. As per the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. Kashyap vs. ACIT (2008) 302 ITR 255 (Delhi), “interest was ultimately relinquished by him in favour of a new vendee by virtue of agreement dated 26.09.1995 and the consideration received by him for relinquishing his rights in the property, thus attracted the provisions of sec. 45(1) making him liable to capital gains tax” this decision was re-emphasized by the jurisdictional High C…

RAMJI BHARANY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 6066/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charymahesh Bharany, Vs. Acit, 14, Sunder Nagar Market, Circle-32(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Afapb8257M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramji Bharany, Vs. Acit, 14, Sunder Nagar Market, Circle-32(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Afapb8261R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri MP Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 2Section 2(47)

…m Northstar Apartments Private Limited accepting the above proposal and paying back assessee the sum of Rs. 3,000,000 (assessee share being Rs. 15,00,000) the assessee also supported its claim by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in JK Kashyap 302 ITR 255 (Delhi) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of grace Collis 248 ITR 323 along with other decisions before the learned Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) also asked for a Performa copy of the agreement which was filed. He dealt with the various clauses of such agreement. The learned CIT(A) dealt with the whole issue considerin…

MAHESH BHARANY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 6065/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charymahesh Bharany, Vs. Acit, 14, Sunder Nagar Market, Circle-32(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Afapb8257M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramji Bharany, Vs. Acit, 14, Sunder Nagar Market, Circle-32(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Afapb8261R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri MP Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 2Section 2(47)

…m Northstar Apartments Private Limited accepting the above proposal and paying back assessee the sum of Rs. 3,000,000 (assessee share being Rs. 15,00,000) the assessee also supported its claim by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in JK Kashyap 302 ITR 255 (Delhi) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of grace Collis 248 ITR 323 along with other decisions before the learned Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) also asked for a Performa copy of the agreement which was filed. He dealt with the various clauses of such agreement. The learned CIT(A) dealt with the whole issue considerin…

SH. RAM KUMAR SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NOIDA

In the result appeal of the Assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 6137/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Kumar Singh Chauhan, Vs. Dcit, H. No. D-96, Sector-55, Circle-3, Noida Noida Pan: Afyps3453C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 53ASection 54Section 54F

…erty which is a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act transfer of which is chargeable to tax as capital gain. He submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of JK Kashyap Vs. ACIT 302 ITR 255. He further submitted that Assessee has shown the cost of acquisition which should be granted as deduction to the Assessee after indexation. With respect to exemption u/s 54F he submitted that all the conditions of that section are fulfilled. Therefore, Assessee should be granted the above deduction. He further submitted that identical issue has…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-30(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 197/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh- Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…013-14 4. Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the same, by way of elaborate written submissions, before Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 31/10/2017 wherein Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J.K. Kashyap vs. ACIT (302 ITR 255) allowed assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. Upon perusal of cited order of Tribunal in the case of co-owner i.e. Prem Ashok Bhatia, we find that Tribunal, on similar factual matrix, has confirmed the stand of Ld. first appellate authority by observing as under: - 12. Admittedly, the assessee i.e. Sh. Prem…

DCIT 30(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI PREM ASHOK BHATIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 179/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-30(2), R.No.601, C-13, Shri Prem Ashok Bhatia, A- बिधम/ 6Th Floor, B.K.C, Bandra (E), 1304, Symphony Of Village, Mumbai-51. Kandivali Linking Road, Vs. Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Amhpb3928P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri K.L Kanak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…s linked with the land is not a capital asset, therefore there is no scope to tax the said income in any head other than capital gain, which is a specific head to tax such income. On the contrary, the ratio of the judgment in the case of J K Kashyap Vs. ACIT (302 ITR 255) (Del. HC) is fully applicable in the instant case, wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has clearly laid down the principal of taxability of such receipts as capital gain in nature. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the issue involved, in my considered opinion, the said receipts of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- by the appellant on account…

S. NARENDRAKUMAR & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 7080/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. S. Narendrakumar & Co., Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Krushal Commercial Income Tax, Complex, Circle 22(2), Vs. G.M. Road, Vashi Railway Station Chembur (W), Complex, Tower No.6, 4Th Floor, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 089 Pan: Aaafs 1245B Navi Mumbai – 400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Neil Philip, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Is Relating To The Taxability Of The Income Gained By The Assessee From Transfer Of The Assessee‟S Right In „5 Office Premises‟ As To Whether The Same Are To Be Assessed Under The Head „Long Term Capital Gains‟ Or As „Income From Other Sources‟. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Had Shown Long Term Capital Gains Of 2 M/S. S. Narendrakumar & Co.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. S. Narendrakumar & Co., Deputy Commissioner of 5th Floor, Krushal Commercial Income Tax, Complex, Circle 22(2), Vs. G.M. Road, Vashi Railway Station Chembur (W), Complex, Tower No.6, 4th Floor, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 089 PAN: AAAFS 1245B Navi Mumbai – 400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Neil Philip, D.R. Date of Hearing : 04.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E…

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)

…possession. By another agreement dated 03.01.1991, the assessee gave up his rights acquired for certain consideration. It was held that the compensation received on giving up right to purchase was treated as long Term Capital Gain. In J.K. Kashyap V/s. ACIT 302 ITR 255 (Delhi) the question before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was as to what was relinquishment of right in capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act. The assessee made payment for acquisition of property by an agreement in 1990. The transaction did not materialize. He relinquished his right in favour of new Page 16 of 22 vendee in 1995. The consideration…

J.K. Kashyap v. ACIT (302 ITR 255) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax