How many judgments cite Naozar Chenoy v. CIT?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite Naozar Chenoy v. CIT (234 ITR 95), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Naozar Chenoy v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 234C, Section 48.

Naozar Chenoy v. CIT

234 ITR 95High Court1998#9561 most cited

What is Naozar Chenoy v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred to pay tenants to vacate premises, which are the subject of a sale transaction, is allowable as a deduction in computing capital gains. This is because the expenditure is directly connected to and necessary for effecting the transfer of the property.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Naozar Chenoy v CIT · 234 ITR 95 · expenditure to vacate tenants · capital gains deduction · cost of improvement · nexus with sale transaction · effecting the transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 234C Section 48

Judgments citing Naozar Chenoy v. CIT

Fusion Lastek Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1094/HYD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 48

…shares of HIPL to Harsco Investments Europe BV, therefore, the issue involved in the aforesaid judicial pronouncement relied upon by the assessee company being distinguishable on facts will also not carry its case any further. E. Naozar Chenoy vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 95 (AP): 23. The issue that was, inter alia, for which the indulgence of the Hon’ble High Court was sought was as to whether or not the expenditure incurred by the assessee by making payment to the tenants for vacating the premises, which was the subject matter of the sale transaction was allowable as a deduction while computing the capital gains ar…

Acmevac Pumps & Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5155/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48(1)

…red wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer of property and hence, allowable as deduction. In this connection, he has relied upon the following judgements:- 137 ITR 846 (Mad) CIT v A Venkataraman & Ors. 160 ITR 840 (Del) CIT v Shankuntala Rajeshwar 234 ITR 95 (AP) Naozar Chenoy v CIT 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v Spencers and Co. Ltd 242 ITR 582 (Bom) CIT v Miss Piroja C Patel 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT v Eagle Theatres 298 ITR 268 (Kar) Mrs. June Perrett v ITO 87 TTJ 273 (Mum-Trib) Ketan Bolonjkar v ACIT 35 ITD 285 (Mum-Trib) Chimanlal Paper Co. P Ltd. v ITO 5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR strongly supported…

Shri Dev Suman Saini, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 397/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR

…Lakhs has been correctly shown by the assessee to compute the capital gains. Reliance was placed by the A.R. on case of CIT vs Miss Piroja C Patel (2000) 242 ITR 582 (Bom.) and Mrs. June Perrett vs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 268 (Kar.) and Naozar Chenoy vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 95 (AP). The AO discussed and distinguished all the three cases in the case of Miss. Piroja C Patel, the assessee had sold land to the BMC which was having hutments over there. In that case giving vacant possession of the land to BMC was a condition precedent under the terms of the negotiation-cum- acquisition agreement. Hence, the compensation paid…

Ghodawat Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT(Hq), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 886/JPR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal & O.P. Agrwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja

Section 4(1)Section 48(1)

…vement”. The said amount has to be allowed because it was incurred in view of facts found, wholly and exclusively connected and linked with transfer / sale. In similar circumstances, the Andhra High Court in Naozar Chenoy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1998] 234 ITR 95 (AP) has observed as under: 15 M/s. Ghodawat Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (HQ), Circle- 6, Jaipur . “As regards the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards payment of the amount to the tenants for vacating the premises, which is the subject matter of the sale transaction, we are of the view that it has nexus with the transaction as without the…

M/S. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(1)

…building is required to be deducting in computing the capital gains of the building sold as incurred 55 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 wholly an exclusively in connection with transfer. Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Naozar Chenoy v. CIT (234 ITR 95), observed as under : “As regards the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards payment of the amount to the tenants for vacating the premises, which is the subject-matter of the sale transaction, we are of the view that it has nexus with the transaction as without the tenants vacating the premises, the building cannot be sold. Therefore we ar…

Sivanandha Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(1)

DCIT - 20(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. J.B. Engg. Works, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)

…y expenditure incurred by an assessee to effect the transfer will be expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in the cases CIT vs Venkatraman 137 ITR 846 (Mad), CIT vs Naozar Chenoy 234 ITR 95 (AP), CIT vs Abrar Alvi 247 ITR 313 (Born) and CIT vs Bradfrod 261 ITR 222 (Madras), for the same proposition. In view of these submissions, it was argued that the Assessing Officer was not justified in determining the Short Term Capital Gain at Rs.3,56,00,000/-. 4.3. Before us, Ld. Departmental Representative has drawn our attention on the relev…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5749/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Section 4(1)

…est is deductible while computing capital gains either is cost or is improvement in the asset. The ratio laid down in Addl. CIT vs K.S. Gupta 119 ITR 372 (AP), CIT vs Mithilesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 (Del.), CIT vs M. Pai 152 ITR 247 (Karn.) and Naozar Chenoy vs CIT 234 ITR 95 (AP). Section 48, which is meant for capital gains clearly envisages allowbility of 9 Vembu Vaidyanathan such expenditure which is incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer and for the purpose of cost of acquisition of the asset as deduction from the full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer of…

Gyanshankar Investments & Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4835/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri S T Bidari

Section 271(1)(c)Section 48

…treated as part of cost while computing the capital gain on sale of shares :- CIT vs Shri Hariram Hotels Pvt Ltd 325 ITR 136 (Karn) CIT vs Maithreyi Pai 152 ITR 247 (Karn) CIT vs Mithlesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 Addl. CIT vs K S Gupta 119 ITR 372 Naozar Chenoy vs CIT 234 ITR 95 Thus assessee’s claim was well supported by the decisions of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Maithreyi Pai (152 ITR 147) and Sri Hariram Hotels (P) Limited (supra). It is not the case that the assessee had made any untenable claim in law or has furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. If the assessee’s claim at the time of fili…

ITA 1287/2011 vs. Eagle Theatres

ITA/1287/2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011

Section 260A

…. The said amount has to be allowed because it was incurred in view of facts found, wholly and exclusively connected and linked with transfer/sale. In similar circumstances, the Andhra High Court in Naozar Chenoy v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 234 ITR 95 (AP) has observed as under: “As regards the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards payment of the amount to the tenants for vacating the premises, which is the subject-matter of the sale transaction, we are of the view that it has nexus with the transaction as without the tenants vacating the 2011:DHC:6578-DB premises, the building…

CIT vs. Eagle Theatres

ITA - 1287 / 2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011

Section 260A