Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

239 ITR 775Supreme Court of India1999#419 most cited

What is Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

215

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mysore Minerals Ltd v CIT · 239 ITR 775 · Section 32 · Section 54 · Section 22 · definition of owner · beneficial ownership · depreciation claim · registration of sale deed not mandatory · real owner · capital gains exemption · Income from House Property

Also reported as

106 Taxmann 166

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 32 Section 148 Section 53A Section 54F Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 53a section 53 section 32(1)put to use section 32 intangible assets capital expenditure revenue expenditure long term capital gain section 26 transfer reasonable cause

Judgments citing Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT

Commissioner of Income Tax –V vs. Kapil Nagpal

ITA/609/2014HC Delhi11 Sept 2015

Section 143Section 260Section 271Section 54Section 54F

…2 (Del), in order to constitute purchase for the purpose of Section 54 and Section 54F of the Act it is not necessary that there should be registered sale deed. This Court in Balraj v. CIT (supra) noticed the decisions in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) and CIT v. R.L. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del) and held that “for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the IT Act, it is not necessary that the Assessee should become the owner of the property. Section 54 of 2015:DHC:7552-DB ITA 609/2014 Page 14 of 15 the said Act speaks of purchase. Moreov…

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotels

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/69/2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 1 of 21 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 7th July 2015 Decided on: 24th July, 2015 + ITA 69/2000 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P.Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Junior standing counsel. versus M/S BHARAT HOTELS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar and Ms Bhovita Kumar, Ad…

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotel Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/70/2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 1 of 21 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 7th July 2015 Decided on: 24th July, 2015 + ITA 69/2000 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P.Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Junior standing counsel. versus M/S BHARAT HOTELS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar and Ms Bhovita Kumar, Ad…

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotel Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 70 / 2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015

…ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 1 of 21 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 7th July 2015 Decided on: 24th July, 2015 + ITA 69/2000 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P.Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Junior standing counsel. versus M/S BHARAT HOTELS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar and Ms Bhovita Kumar, Ad…

C I T vs. M/S Bharat Hotels

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 71 / 2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015

…ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 1 of 21 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 7th July 2015 Decided on: 24th July, 2015 + ITA 69/2000 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P.Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Junior standing counsel. versus M/S BHARAT HOTELS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar and Ms Bhovita Kumar, Ad…

C.I.T vs. M/S Bharat Hotel Ltd

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 72 / 2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015

…ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 1 of 21 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 7th July 2015 Decided on: 24th July, 2015 + ITA 69/2000 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P.Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Junior standing counsel. versus M/S BHARAT HOTELS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar and Ms Bhovita Kumar, Ad…

C.I.T vs. M/S Bharat Hotels

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with no order as to

ITA - 73 / 2000HC Delhi24 Jul 2015

…ITAs 69, 70, 71, 72, & 73/2000 Page 1 of 21 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 7th July 2015 Decided on: 24th July, 2015 + ITA 69/2000 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P.Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Junior standing counsel. versus M/S BHARAT HOTELS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar and Ms Bhovita Kumar, Ad…

K.R.Muralidhar, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1097/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1097/Mds/2015 & S.P. No.338/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. No.1097/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri K.R. Muralidhar, Old No.120, New No.246, The Income Tax Officer, Room No.24 & 25, 1St Floor, V. Non-Corporate Circle – 13, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 001. Pan : Aagpm 9070 N (Appellant & Petitioner) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

…97/Mds/15 S.P. No.338/Mds/15 definition given in other enactments. Therefore, whether there is a transfer or not is to be examined in the light of Section 2(47) of the Act and not otherwise. In fact, the Apex Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (239 ITR 775) examined this issue and found that the registration of document is not an essential requirement for transfer of property under the Income-tax Act. This judgment of the Apex Court was not brought to the notice of the Madras High Court in S. Rajamani & Thangarajan Industries (supra). This was also not considered by this Tribunal in Raja Fertiliz…

M/S Krupanidhi Education Trust, Bangalore vs. DIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…extent it is depreciated during the period of account relevant to assessment year and as the value to that extent had been lost, the corresponding allowance of depreciation takes place. He also referred to the decision in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT, (1999) 239 ITR 775 wherein it was observed that the concept of depreciation suggests that tax benefit on account of depreciation legitimately belongs to one who has invested in the capital asset in utilising the capital asset and thereby losing gradually investment cost by wear and tear and need to replace the same by having lost its value fully over a period of ti…

CIT Large Tax Payers Unit vs. Indian Railway Finance Corp Ltd

ITA-1189/2011HC Delhi31 Oct 2013

Section 115Section 145

…he assessee before the end of financial year ending 3r''' March, 2000. The respondent-assessee, therefore, became entitled to benefit under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and accordingly decision of the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Vs. CIT [2009] 239 ITR 775 (SC) was applicable. 20. The aforesaid findings are findings of fact. The tribunal has I ^ taken into account and relied upon the possession letter dated 28* April, 1998 in which NBCC had accepted that the possession of the space measuring 625 square meters and 285 square meters was handed over to the respondent assessee on 23'^'' September, 2000…

CIT vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd

In the result we answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative,

ITA - 1855 / 2010HC Delhi06 Dec 2012

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32

…he “office note” appended to the assessing order, that the question of capital gains will be examined in the assessment year 2006-07. Reference was invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1999) 239 ITR 775. As far as the other condition, namely, the user of the property for the purpose of the assessee‟s business is concerned, it was submitted that Smt.Ritu Aggarwal, the director of the assessee-company, used the property for her residence and thus this condition also stood satisfied. It was contended that ultimately the assessment resulted o…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Morgan Finvest Pvt Ltd

In the result we answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative,

ITA/1855/2010HC Delhi06 Dec 2012

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32

…he “office note” appended to the assessing order, that the question of capital gains will be examined in the assessment year 2006-07. Reference was invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1999) 239 ITR 775. As far as the other condition, namely, the user of the property for the purpose of the assessee‟s business is concerned, it was submitted that Smt.Ritu Aggarwal, the director of the assessee-company, used the property for her residence and thus this condition also stood satisfied. It was contended that ultimately the assessment resulted o…

CIT vs. Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd

ITA/419/2012HC Delhi27 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…ms to be aggrieved against the said two questions. 4. As far as the first question, i.e., claim for depreciation on account of car parking space is concerned, the question stands covered by the decision of Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals case reported 239 ITR 775 (SC). That question is, therefore, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. The Court notices that as far as the second question ITA-419/2012 Page 3 i.e. provident fund contribution amounting to ` 9,08,359/- is concerned, the assessee had relied upon the letter dated 25.08.1976. The very same material ha…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Indian Sugar & Gen.Indu.Ex.Imp

ITA - 645 / 2005HC Delhi30 Jan 2012

…ed owner. We are not inclined to frame any question of law on the aforesaid question as this issue has to be decided against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775. 26. It is not the contention of the Revenue that the respondent-assessee 2012:DHC:658-DB ITA Nos. 645/2005, 742/2005, 796/2005, 817/2005, 794/2005, 71/2011, 1166/2011 & 1168/2011. Page 23 of 23 was not in possession of the property and had not acquired interest in the said property as per Section 53A of the Transfer o…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del

ITA/645/2005HC Delhi30 Jan 2012

…ed owner. We are not inclined to frame any question of law on the aforesaid question as this issue has to be decided against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775. 26. It is not the contention of the Revenue that the respondent-assessee 2012:DHC:658-DB ITA Nos. 645/2005, 742/2005, 796/2005, 817/2005, 794/2005, 71/2011, 1166/2011 & 1168/2011. Page 23 of 23 was not in possession of the property and had not acquired interest in the said property as per Section 53A of the Transfer o…