Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981
(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.