What is P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma authority for?

If the cost of acquiring tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received from the surrender of those rights is not subject to capital gains tax.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(3), Section 132, Section 14, Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 153C.

P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (165 ITR 386)

Q: How many judgments cite P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (165 ITR 386), spanning 2005 to 2025.

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…of tenancy rights, the consideration received on (see among others Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Delhi); CIT v. Mangtu Ram Jaipuria (1991) 192 ITR 533 (Cal); CIT v., Joy Ice-Creams (Bangalore) P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. 987) 165 ITR 386 (AP); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (1987) Merchandisers P. Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to…

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…of tenancy rights, the consideration received on (see among others Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Delhi); CIT v. Mangtu Ram Jaipuria (1991) 192 ITR 533 (Cal); CIT v., Joy Ice-Creams (Bangalore) P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. 987) 165 ITR 386 (AP); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (1987) Merchandisers P. Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to…

Mrs.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…of tenancy rights, the consideration received on (see among others Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Delhi); CIT v. Mangtu Ram Jaipuria (1991) 192 ITR 533 (Cal); CIT v., Joy Ice-Creams (Bangalore) P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. 987) 165 ITR 386 (AP); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (1987) Merchandisers P. Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to…

Mrs.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…of tenancy rights, the consideration received on (see among others Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Delhi); CIT v. Mangtu Ram Jaipuria (1991) 192 ITR 533 (Cal); CIT v., Joy Ice-Creams (Bangalore) P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. 987) 165 ITR 386 (AP); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (1987) Merchandisers P. Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to…

Mrs.Reena Jose, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…of tenancy rights, the consideration received on (see among others Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Delhi); CIT v. Mangtu Ram Jaipuria (1991) 192 ITR 533 (Cal); CIT v., Joy Ice-Creams (Bangalore) P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn.); CIT v. 987) 165 ITR 386 (AP); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (1987) Merchandisers P. Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker.) In all these decisions, the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jose Thomas

ITA/56/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 I.T.A.NO.48 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.208 OF 2019 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: 1 GRACY BABU, PADINJAREVEETTIL, PUTHENVEEDU, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 523 2 ADDL.R2 FRUDDY BABU THOM…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gracy Babu

ITA/48/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 I.T.A.NO.48 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.208 OF 2019 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: 1 GRACY BABU, PADINJAREVEETTIL, PUTHENVEEDU, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 523 2 ADDL.R2 FRUDDY BABU THOM…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reena Jose

ITA/47/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 I.T.A.NO.48 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.208 OF 2019 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: 1 GRACY BABU, PADINJAREVEETTIL, PUTHENVEEDU, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 523 2 ADDL.R2 FRUDDY BABU THOM…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt.Gracy Babu

ITA/54/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 I.T.A.NO.48 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.208 OF 2019 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: 1 GRACY BABU, PADINJAREVEETTIL, PUTHENVEEDU, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 523 2 ADDL.R2 FRUDDY BABU THOM…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jose Thomas

ITA/46/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024/14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 I.T.A.NO.48 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.208 OF 2019 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), KOCHI. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: 1 GRACY BABU, PADINJAREVEETTIL, PUTHENVEEDU, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 523 2 ADDL.R2 FRUDDY BABU THOM…

Commissioner of Income Tax TDS vs. M/S Mewar Hospital Pvt Ltd

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

Baban Genuji Kumbharkar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2316/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45Section 54F

…could not find the actual cost of acquisition paid by way of valuable consideration. We therefore, find merit in the assessee's case in the light of CIT Vs. Sambhaji Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 325 as well as CIT Vs Markapakula Agamma (1987) 165 ITR 386 (AP) and direct the Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation after adopting the cost of the asset’s acquisition in issue as “NIL”. Once the assessee succeeds in his first and foremost substantive ground, all other grounds have become infructuous in light of his statement in para 3 hereinabove. Ordered accordingly. Baban G. Kumbhar…

Baban Genuji Kumbharkar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 2315/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 45Section 54F

…could not find the actual cost of acquisition paid by way of valuable consideration. We therefore, find merit in the assessee's case in the light of CIT Vs. Sambhaji Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 325 as well as CIT Vs Markapakula Agamma (1987) 165 ITR 386 (AP) and direct the Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation after adopting the cost of the asset’s acquisition in issue as “NIL”. Once the assessee succeeds in his first and foremost substantive ground, all other grounds have become infructuous in light of his statement in para 3 hereinabove. Ordered accordingly. Baban G. Kumbhar…

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2339/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 45Section 50Section 54Section 54F

…surrender of tenancy rights. (see among others Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Delhi); CIT v. Mangtu Ram Jaipuria (1991) 192 ITR 533 (Cal); CIT v. Joy Ice-Creams (Bangalore ) P. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 894 (Karn); CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (1987) 165 ITR 386 (AP); CIT v. Merchandisers P. Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker).In all these decisions the several High Courts held that if the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the consideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy rights could not be subjected to capital gains tax. (10) According to a circular issued by the Cen…