Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT

63 ITR 651Supreme Court of India1967#4372 most cited

What is Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT authority for?

The date of acquisition of shares, particularly in the context of rights issues, is the date the company's offer to subscribe to shares is made, not the date of allotment, physical issuance, or payment.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v CIT · 63 ITR 651 · SC · 1967 · date of acquisition · rights issue · shares · allotment date · payment date · subscription offer

Sections most often in play

Section 249
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT

DCIT, Cir.-1(1), Pune vs. Global Infrastructure & Technologies Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 624/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed to appreciate the decision of his predecessor, taken on merits, for A.Y. 1995-96. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the following decision which are factually distinguishable, i) Dhun Kapadia 63 ITR 651(SC) ii) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102(SC) iii) Birla Gawlior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266 (SC) iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the…

DCIT, Cir.-1(1), Pune vs. Mantri Housing & Constructions Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2004[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed to appreciate the decision of his predecessor, taken on merits, for A.Y. 1995-96. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the following decision which are factually distinguishable, i) Dhun Kapadia 63 ITR 651(SC) ii) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102(SC) iii) Birla Gawlior Pvt. Ltd. 89 ITR 266 (SC) iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the…

Analjit Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), Delhi

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…he purposes of section 43(1) of the Act, whereas the case of Escort Farms reported in 222 ITR 508 relied upon by the appellant refers to cost of acquisition of bonus shares under the pre- amended provisions of the Act. Reference to Miss Dhun Dadabhoi Kapadia (63 ITR 651) refers to renunciation of rights in shares and now in wake of the amendment in section 55(2) negates the effect of this decision. The case of Naveen Jindal (320 ITR 708) deals with the issue of debentures granted on the right basis but the matter relates AY 1992- 93, which again is prior to the amendment made in section 55(2) of the Act. In this…

Shyamala Pictures and Hotel Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 04.07.2017
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 28

…he ld. CIT(A) vide para 6 (i.e., sub paras 6.1 through 6.6) of his order, stating it to be not a case of conversion of an asset into another, and of it being the second leg of the transfer. The decisions in the case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) and Smt. Sowcar Janaki v. ITO [2014] 160 TTJ 747 (Chennai), relied upon by the assessee, do not advance its case in any manner. The very fact that the two – the land and the superstructure thereon, are separate assets, sold as a composite unit, and the superstructure – a part of the unit transferred, could not come into existence without remo…

Cairn Uk Holding Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

…capital gain, he referred that provisions of section 55 (2) do not apply to the facts of the case and therefore he relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in case of Miss Dhoon Dadabhoy Kapadia versus Commissioner of income tax (1967) (63 ITR 651) (SC). He further referred to the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in CIT versus R R Ramakrishna Pillai (1967) 66 ITR 725 (SC) and submitted that in the present case, it is a case of exchange and not of sale as the consideration has been settled by allotment of shares, therefore it was not a transfer for a price but for exchange of a…

Jm Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) 4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly dismissed. However, in view of our findings given above, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3654/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.M. Financial Services The Joint Commissioner Of Ltd., Income-Tax (Osd)-4(3), (Formerly Jm Financial Room No.635, Services Pvt. Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 7Th Floor, Cnergy, M.K. Road, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaacj5977A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, D.R
Section 14A

…result of all activities/transactions in an integrated business such as arbitrage business, which has to be looked at, to determine the character and the head of income, reliance is placed on the following decisions: • Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC) • CIT v UP State Industrial Development Corporation [1997) 225 ITR 703 (SC) 23 ITA No.3654/M/2014 & ITA No.3660/M/2014 M/s. J.M. Financial Services Ltd. • CIT v Nirmal Kumar & Co. [1986] 161 ITR 413 (Cal) • Dr. Rajesh M. Parikh v ITO [2006] 8 SOT 61 (Mum ITAT) • ChiragTanna v ACIT (ITA No 4227 and 5027/Mum/2010) In view of the above the loss…

Ghanshyam Harjivandas Patadia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3643/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3643/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 Mr. Ghanshyam The Ito-25(3)(1), बनाम/ Harjivandas Patadia, Mumbai Vs. C/O Sweet Home Developers Pvt. Ltd., 193, Bubna House, 1St Floor, S.V. Road, Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpp 4713A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148

…bserved and applied. Thus, in working out capital gains or losses, the principles that have to be applied are those which are a part of commercial practice or those to which an ordinary man of business will resort when computing his business income. (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia From the above points it can be concluded that: 11 a. The physical possession of the property was not given by the assessee to the proposed buyer as the same has been acquired by the Government of India under Salt Section b. Total sale consideration is not received by the assessee as specified above. The above me…