Kaushalya Devi v. CIT

404 ITR 136High Court2018#15811 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 37Section 48Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 131

Issues it is cited on

full value of considerationsection 48section 37transferindiapersondocumentinterestsection 143(3)total income

Judgments citing Kaushalya Devi v. CIT

Zarah Rafique Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’ble Accountant Member Zarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (INT.TAX) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 PAN : ADCPM8960G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom Kandalkar Respondent By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 10.03.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : By this appeal, appellant-assessee…

Shankare Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Shankare Gowda No.2314/A/1681/A, Behind Bescom Office Subhash Nagara Ito Nelamangala Vs. Ward 4(3)(3) Bengaluru Rural 562 123 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No : Bozpg9856G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Mohit Ashok Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

…lement of a claim and payment made amount to expenditure in connection with the immovable property & it enhance its value. 10.5 Further, as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kaushalya Devi v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2018) 404 ITR 136, the word "wholly" refers to the quantum of expenditure and the word "exclusively" refers to the motive, objective and purpose of the expenditure. These two words give jurisdiction to the taxing authority to decide whether the expenditure was incurred in connection with the transfer. We are also of the opinion that compensation/damages/penalty am…

Yogesh Patel, Usa vs. DCIT Circle Int Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

ITA 2065/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

…section 48 must have connection i.e., proximate and perceptible nexus and link with the transfer resulting in income by way of capital gain. Reliance for this can be placed on the decisions in Kaushalya Devi v. CIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 14 335/255 Taxman 417/404 ITR 136 (Delhi) and Honda Motor Co. Ltd., [2018] 90 taxmann.com 180/253 (AAR – New Delhi). 14. Expenditure used in clause (i) in section 48 of the Act, would primarily connote and has the meaning of spending or paying out. In a given case, it may also cover the amount of loss, which has gone out of the assessee’s pocket. Like in case in hand, the assesse…

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Sentinel Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2130/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Sentinel Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cir-14(3)(2) 759/34, Bhosale Pavillion, Room No. 1905, 19Th Floor, Air Bhandarkar Road, Deccan India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Gymkhana, Mumbai-400021 Maharashtra-411004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakcs7147K Assessee By : Shri. Sanjay N. Kapadia Ca Revenue By : Shri. Kishor Dhule, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10 .2023

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay N. Kapadia CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143

…mann.com 334 (Delhi) ii. CIT versus Lubrizol India Ltd 37 taxmann.com 294 (Bom) iii. Deputy Commissioner of income tax versus Vatika townships private limited (36 taxmann.com 283) (Del) A.Y. 2017-18 Sentinel Properties Pvt. Ltd. iv. Kaushlya Devi versus CIT 404 ITR 136 (Del) 09. Learned assessing officer rejected explanation of assessee for the reason that :- i. in absence of consideration paid by the company, no right arose in favour of that company and therefore, in absence of such right compensation paid by assessee to that company is not allowable as deductible expenditure, ii. when assessee sold propert…

Satish Kumar Pandey vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are allowed

ITA/696/2019HC Karnataka16 Dec 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 48

…entering into the agreement the assessee had written a letter6 agreeing to pay an additional amount in the event MIFL gets him a good price for his shares. The evidence on record shows the 7(2018) 404 ITR 136 (Del). 8(2015) 373 ITR 424 (Kar). I.T.A No.695/2019 C/W I.T.A No.696/2019 11 assessee got…

DCIT, Non Corporate Circle - 2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Jayapal Sanjay, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1737/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Jayapal Sanjay Income Tax, Non-Corporate 78/132, Dr. Radhakrishnan Circle-2(1), Chennai Salai, Mylapore, Room No. 320, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Chennai-600004. Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar (Pan: Aavps9647J) Bhavan, 121, M G Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Chennai Vide Ita No. 161/2017-18/(A)-2 Dated 27.03.2019 Passed Against The Order Of Acit, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Chennai Dated 29.12.2017 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Before Us Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 48

…hether the tenants were related parties as in the present case before us in which 99% of the shares/shareholding is by the related co-owners including the assessee. In respect of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 136 (Del) it is not discernible whether the property was free from encumbrance and that the tenants were related party or not. Similarly, in the case of CIT 19 Jayapal Sanjay AY 2015-16 v. C. V. Sundarajan & Anr. (1983) 150 ITR 80 (Mad), the payments were made for relinquishment of rights in the property sold. Also, in the case of CIT v. Ms. Piroja…

Kaushalya Devi v. CIT (404 ITR 136) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax