Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ganapathi Raju Jegi, Sanyasi Raju on 8 September, 1976
6. The decisions of the Madras High Court in Vaidyanathaswami's case [1979] 119 ITR 369 and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ganapathi Raju Jegi's case [ 1979] 119 ITR 715 are pointers to hold that in a case where a person obtains the route permit for the first time and it is transferred, it is akin to a transfer of "goodwill", a self-generated asset. It will have no cost of acquisition.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Venkateswara Bus Union on 31 January, 1979
3. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. P. K. R. Menon, as also counsel for the assessee, Mr. Jose Joseph. Counsel for the Revenue contended that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in drawing a dichotomy between the transfer of route permits by the assessee, acquired from other parties at a cost, and transfer of route permits by the assessee which were obtained by him for the first time. It was also argued that the route permits cannot be considered to be analogous to goodwill to say that there will be no cost of acquisition or that it is a self-generated asset and since no cost at all can be conceived for the acquisition of the assets, it is not possible to compute the capital gains as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Counsel for the Revenue mainly placed reliance on the decisions of the Madras High Court in K. Balasubramania Nair v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 504 and CIT v. Shri Venkateswara Bus Union [1979] 119 ITR 507 to contend that the cases of transfer of the route permits cannot be treated as analogous to the sale of goodwill nor can it be called a self-generating asset and so the profit obtained by the transfer of the route permits is exigible to capital gains tax.
S. Vaidyanathaswami vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 March, 1978
6. The decisions of the Madras High Court in Vaidyanathaswami's case [1979] 119 ITR 369 and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ganapathi Raju Jegi's case [ 1979] 119 ITR 715 are pointers to hold that in a case where a person obtains the route permit for the first time and it is transferred, it is akin to a transfer of "goodwill", a self-generated asset. It will have no cost of acquisition.
The Additional Commissioner Of Income ... vs K.S. Sheik Mohideen on 2 February, 1978
Ltd.'s case [1983] 142 ITR 702 (Bom) and Sheik Mohideen's case [1978] 115 ITR 243 (Mad) [FB], we hold that no tax on capital gains can be levied in respect of the transfer of such route permits. We are of the view that before any capital gains tax can be levied, the asset sold must be such as is capable of having a cost of acquisition as contemplated under Section 48 of the Act. An asset to which Section 48 cannot be applied cannot be brought to tax under Section 45, since the asset must possess the inherent quality of being available on expenditure of money to a person seeking to acquire it before it can be subjected to capital gains. The route permits cannot be considered as assets which are capable of acquisition, initially, for a price. When such assets are transferred, there can be no question of capital gains.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981
Since no cost of acquisition can be predicated for the route permit obtained for the first time by a person, in the light of the decision in Srinivasa Setty's case [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC), Vaidyanathasw ami's case [1979] 119 ITR 369 (Mad), Modiram Laxmandas (P.)
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
K. Balasubramania Nair vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 January, 1979
3. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. P. K. R. Menon, as also counsel for the assessee, Mr. Jose Joseph. Counsel for the Revenue contended that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in drawing a dichotomy between the transfer of route permits by the assessee, acquired from other parties at a cost, and transfer of route permits by the assessee which were obtained by him for the first time. It was also argued that the route permits cannot be considered to be analogous to goodwill to say that there will be no cost of acquisition or that it is a self-generated asset and since no cost at all can be conceived for the acquisition of the assets, it is not possible to compute the capital gains as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act. Counsel for the Revenue mainly placed reliance on the decisions of the Madras High Court in K. Balasubramania Nair v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 504 and CIT v. Shri Venkateswara Bus Union [1979] 119 ITR 507 to contend that the cases of transfer of the route permits cannot be treated as analogous to the sale of goodwill nor can it be called a self-generating asset and so the profit obtained by the transfer of the route permits is exigible to capital gains tax.
1