Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 February, 2001
(vii)
CIT v. Merchondisers (P.) Ltd.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (2.58 seconds)Carmel Educational Trust, ... vs Dcit,Cen- Circle,, Kottayam on 30 September, 2019
);
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.
Ito 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai on 14 February, 2022
(9) In other words, an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be
included within the provisions pertaining to the head "Capital gains" as
opposed to assets in the acquisition of which no cost at all can be conceived.
The principle propounded in B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC)
has been followed by several High Courts with reference to the consideration
received on 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.
Income-Tax Officer vs Heena Agriculture (P) Ltd. on 8 September, 2006
[See: Among others Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT ; CIT v. Mangtu Ram Jaipuria ; CIT v. Joy-Ice Creams (Bang) (P) Ltd. ; CIT v. Markapakula Agamma and CIT v. Merchandisers (P) Ltd. ]. 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.
Dy. Cit (Inv.) Circle 14(1) vs Dharmesh H. Doshi on 19 July, 2005
For this proposition, he relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC), CIT v. Merchandisers (P.) Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker.
S. Kumars Tyre Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 January, 1997
(iii) CIT vs. Merchandisers (P) Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker);
S. Kumars Tyre Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 3 January, 1997
(iii) CIT vs. Merchandisers (P) Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker);
S.L. Suri vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 May, 2000
(iii) CIT v. Merchandisers (P) Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker);
S.L. Suri vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 May, 2000
(iii) CIT vs. Merchandisers (P) Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107 (Ker);
Cadell Weaving Mills Co. (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 November, 2001
(vii) CIT vs. Merchandisers (P) Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107
(Kei);