Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1174 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981

Rajani Prakash Kashid, Kolhapur vs Ito, Ward 1(4), Kolhapur, Kolhapur on 1 October, 2024

(ii) in acquisition whereof assessee has incurred a cost and onus of showing that assessee had incurred cost is on Revenue, if Revenue failed to show that assessee had incurred a cost, it would be impossible to compute the income chargeable to tax under the head capital gains. By Finance Act, 1987m w.e.f. April 1st, 1988, the amended section 55 of the Act only ropes in taxability of goodwill on transfer of the same even if there is no cost of acquisition. Similarly, section 55 has been amended from time to time to enable taxability of other assets wherein no cost of acquisition is envisaged. Therefore, even if amendment is taken into consideration, section 55 can be invoked in case of nil cost of acquisition for the purpose of bringing tax the entire sale consideration only in relation to specified assets, as 7 ITA No.608/PUN/2024, AY 2011-12 held in CIT v. Manoharsinhji P. Jadeja (supra), by driving strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. B. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC). Even the case of the assessee does not fall in the specified assets to attract amended provisions of section 55.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Star Chemicals (Bom) (P) Ltd. on 30 April, 2007

Hence the ratio of B.C. Srinivasa Setty (supra) held good in the case of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) therefore directed the AO not to subject the sale proceeds of the impugned land to capital gains tax. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal being ITA No. 4314/Mum/1998. That appeal was decided by the order of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ''G", Mumbai dt. 1st Dec, 2003. The Tribunal noted that during the course of assessment proceedings Property Register Card bearing city survey No. 1411/12 (135/7) was not filed and the same was filed for the first time before CIT(A). That card showed assessee as holder in the year 1969. As per the property card the assessee was holding the property free from encumbrances. The Tribunal accepted the proposition that if there is no cost of acquisition, no capital gain can be charged. It noted that the case of Revenue was that the assessee had incurred litigation expenses apropos the acquisition of land. As such there was cost of acquisition, even if it was assumed that the land was received by the assessee without any cost. The Tribunal held that for the purpose of adjudicating the appeal it was necessary to decide how the property was acquired and at what cost. The assessee's submission was that it acquired the property on adverse possession. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to constitute adverse possession there had to be actual possession by a person claiming as of right by himself or by persons deriving title from him. The proof of continuous possession for a period of 12 years was, sine qua non. The possession acquired had to be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it was adverse to the owner. It was necessary that the possession was not by violence, stealth or permission. Hon'ble Tribunal noted that the assessee company was incorporated in 1962 whereas the Property Register Card showed that the assessee was holding the property in 1969 without any encumbrance. For the purpose of Limitation Act there could not be acquisition on adverse possession prior to the completion of 12 years. It was therefore essential to know the title of the assessee. Somehow or the other that aspect escaped the notice of the AO. The AO referred to litig ation expense and that issue was inextricably linked with the issue of adverse possession. It was a legal issue that was required to be examined on the touchstone of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal therefore restored the issue to the file of the AO, with direction to decide it afresh, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 45 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Ram Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs Ito, Jaipur on 31 October, 2017

"5. It is pointed out that the judgment in B.C. Shrinivasa Setty's case (supra) is distinguishable. It was observed therein that in a newly started business the value of goodwill was not ascertainable, and on sale of goodwill, capital gain was not attracted. It is submitted that in the case of acquisition of land, the same is either acquired at some cost or without cost and under the scheme of the Act, there can be no situation when the cost is incapable of ascertainment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Coromandel Fertilisers Limited vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 10 November, 2003

In the present case, the charging provision, i.e. Section 45, is clear, but thee computational provisions of Section 48 are not satisfied as held by the Apex Court in the case of Srinivasa Setty (supra). In this view of the matter, we accept the contentions of the assessee on this aspect, and hold that no tax is leviable on the transfer of the cement unit in this case, as the requirements of computational provisions of Section 48 are not satisfied. Assessee's grounds on this issue are accepted. 123A. In the view we have taken of the matter, we do not have to go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the directions given by the CIT (A) for ascertaining the cost of acquisition of the undertaking.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 94 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Hcl Infosystems Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 October, 2002

In the absence of this provision, the cost of acquisition cannot be determined and in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (supra), no capital gains tax could be levied under Section 45 of the Act in respect of this capital asset for which no cost of acquisition is incurred by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 40 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Chintan N. Parikh And Vatsal N. Parikh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 August, 2001

15. Mr. Akil Qureshi, the learned advocate on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that once it was established that the assessee became the owner of the remainderman's interest on the death of Shakuntalaben and the assessee entered into a transaction of sale it was not necessary for the court to consider anything further, viz., whether there could be buyer in the open market for such a limited interest. It was submitted that the market value or the marketability of the remainderman's interest could not be equated with cost and the cost could be arrived at and though such ascertainment was difficult it was not impossible. He further submitted that the cost of acquisition had to be the cost in the hands of the previous owner, the term "previous owner" to mean as understood under Section 49(1) read with the Explanation thereto ; that though difficult it was possible to ascertain a definite figure in the hands of such previous owner. That Shri Tulsidas had received the entire property on partition of the Hindu undivided family and had become an absolute owner thereof, that the cost of the entire property in the hands of Tulsidas or in the hands of the Hindu undivided family would always be available/ascertainable, though with difficulty, hence, the next step would be to envisage the cost of the limited interest carved out from such entire property. He therefore submitted that the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294, would not apply to the facts of the case as the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a self-generated asset where the emphasis was on the improbability of envisaging cost in view of the fact that even date of acquisition of such self-generated asset would not be known. That in the present case the sale price was available. The last previous owner, viz., the Hindu undivided family, was known and Tulsidas had divested himself of all the rights when he executed the trust deed which he could do only if he was in possession of that right. It was submitted that it would not be possible to envisage that a capital asset could have two different forms--one at the time of acquisition and the other when it was sold.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - A R Dave - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next