Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT

166 ITR 783Supreme Court of India1987#11207 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 32 Section 45 Section 54EC Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 54f section 54 section 32 transfer person total income interest

Judgments citing Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

…y one person or partly owned by other person(s). For holding this view, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023 Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it was held that a fractional ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fractional depreciation under section 32 of the Act and as a consequence to this decision the Legislature had to amend the provisions of section 32 with effect from 1-4-1997 by using the expression “owned wholly or partly”. Since no such words are expressively…

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

For Appellant: Mr. S.M. MakhijaFor Respondent: Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. DR

Section 54ESection 54F

…n(s). other person(s). For holding this view we draw For holding this view we draw strength from the decision of the strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it was held that a fractio a fractional ownership was not sufficient for claiming nal ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fractional depreciation under section 32 of the Act and as a even fractio…

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

ITA 296/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh.Pariskhit Aggarwal, CA and Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

…er a compromise or amicable settlement, which is in the nature of profit and should to be assessed as revenue receipts only and not capital received. This view is bolstered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Das Gupta vs. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 783 and in the case of CIT Vs. Best & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 60 ITR 11 (SC), wherein it was held that where compensation is received for loss of an enduring asset, it would be a capita! receipt but where it is received in the ordinary course of business, it shall be a revenue receipt. It was also held that no injury had been caused to the capital structure of…

THE STATE BANK OF HYD. vs. THE JT.COMMI.SPL.RANGE IV HYD.

ITTA/103/2001HC Telangana07 Sept 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 21Section 251Section 254(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 27Section 43I

…cision can valiclh. fc,rm the basis fbr rc( tifving an order of assessment urLder Section i 54 of the A :t It was held as follows: "8. Trrre is no dispute that the decision of the Suprcrr: Court in Seth Baaarsi Dass Gupta's case N,IANU/ i(r/0552/ 1987 : |9871 166 ITR 783 (SiC) was rcndere I ;rfter the original assessments were finalised eiving hi benefit of depreciation allowancc to the l8 assessees. Based upon the said Supreme Court decision, rectification orders were passed by the successor assessing authority. Whether a subsequent decision can be the basis for "rectifying" a.:n ea.rlier order in exercise of…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-20(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 814/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 20(1) Vs. Ashok Govindji Room No. 619, Chauhan, 6Th Floor, Piramal B 301, Veena Beena Chambers, Parel, Chs Ltd., Acharya Dome Mumbai – 400012. Marg, Sewree Mumbai – 400014. Pan/Gir No. Aabpc7897A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Krishna Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Ms .Vasanti Patel.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Krishna Kumar.DRFor Respondent: Ms .Vasanti Patel.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…all others. Therefore, where a house is jointly owned by two or more persons, none of them can be said to be the owner of that house. This view of ours is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Ds Gupta v. CIT 166 ITR 783, wherein it was held that a fractional ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fraction depreciation Under Section 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the legislature had to amend the provisions of Section 32 with effect from 1.4.1997 by using the expression "owned wholly or partly". So, the word "own" would not include a case where a…

ASHOK G. CHAUHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1309/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm (Division Bench) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1309/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) In The Matter Of;

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 27Section 54Section 54F

DCIT 5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DAWOOD ABDULHUSSAIN GANDHI, MUMBAI

ITA 3788/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 3788/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Dawood Abdulhussain बिधम/ Tax-5(2)(2), Room No. 571, Gandhi, 102, Lohar Chawl, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai 400002. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabpg4337K (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…a house is jointly owned by two or more persons, none of them can be said to be the owner of that house. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta vs. CIT (1987) 64 CTR (SC) 142 : (1987) 166 ITR 783 (SC), wherein, it was held that a fractional ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fractional depreciation under s. 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the legislature had to amend the provisions of s. 32 w.e.f. 1st April, 1997 by using the expression "owned wholly or partly". So, the word "own" would not include a case where a resi…

DCIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SUMAN N. BHALLA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6700/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparakhiFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 54F

…others. Therefore, where a house is jointly owned by two or more persons, none of them can be said to be the owner of that house. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1987] 166 ITR 783, wherein, it was held that a fractional ownership was not sufficient for claiming even fractional depreciation under section 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the Legislature had to amend the provisions of section 32 with effect from 1-4-1997 by using the expression "owned wholly or partly". So, the word "own" would not include a case wher…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V vs. KAPIL NAGPAL

ITA/609/2014HC Delhi11 Sept 2015

Section 143Section 260Section 271Section 54Section 54F

…ITA 609/2014 Page 1 of 15 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: August 24, 2015 Date of decision: September 11, 2015 11. + ITA 609/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. versus KAPIL NAGPAL ..... Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta with Ms. Poonam Ahuja and Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU…