Kartikey v. Sarabhai v. CIT

288 ITR 163Supreme Court of India1998#24242 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing Kartikey v. Sarabhai v. CIT

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

…of section 2(47) of the IT Act. ii. It is submitted that the claim of the Appellant with respect to the long-term capital loss is well-founded in law on account of the following: i. Transfer is defined in an inclusive manner. a. In Kartikey V. Sarabhai v. CIT 288 ITR 163 , the Supreme Court while holding that that reduction of share capital by company paying a part of the capital would result in extinguishment of proportionate right in shares held by shareholder in terms of Section 2(47) of the IT Act, observed as follows: “Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act defines „transfer‟ in relation to a capital asset. It…

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

…of section 2(47) of the IT Act. ii. It is submitted that the claim of the Appellant with respect to the long-term capital loss is well-founded in law on account of the following: i. Transfer is defined in an inclusive manner. a. In Kartikey V. Sarabhai v. CIT 288 ITR 163 , the Supreme Court while holding that that reduction of share capital by company paying a part of the capital would result in extinguishment of proportionate right in shares held by shareholder in terms of Section 2(47) of the IT Act, observed as follows: “Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act defines „transfer‟ in relation to a capital asset. It…

M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Sudhakara Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 2(47)

…ent value and number of shares held in its financials. The loss so incurred have been claimed as a capital loss. The Apex Court has laid down with regard to the meaning of 'transfer' and scope of Section 2(47) of the Act in Kartikeya V. Sarabhail v. CIT(1998) 288 ITR 163(SC). It has been laid down in that decision that, "Section" 2(47) of the Income Tax Act,1961, defines "transfer" in relation to a capital asset. It is an inclusive definition which, inter cilia, provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right there in amounts to a transfer of a capital asset. It is not necessary for a capi…

Kartikey v. Sarabhai v. CIT (288 ITR 163) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax