Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.52 seconds)Section 261 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central on 27 June, 1975
In Traders and Mining
Ltd. v. C.I.T., 27 ITR 341, a Division Bench of the Patna
High Court, interpreting the expression "transfer of a
capital asset" held as under:
Section 14 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
R.K.Palshikar (Huf) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... on 5 May, 1988
This decision has been referred to with approval by this
Court in R.K. Palshikar (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income.
Tax, M.P. Nagpur, [1988] 3 SCC 549. If transfer of capital
asset in section 45 of the Act includes grant of Mining
Lease for any period .then obviously the "cost of acquisi-
tion" of the land would include the "cost of acquisition" Of
the Mining right under the lease. Undisputedly the grant of
alease being a transfer of an asset there is no escape from
the conclusion that
602
there is a live nexus between the "cost of acquisition" of
the land and the rights granted under the lease. The amount
of Rs.27,260 paid by the Assessee was not only the cost of
acquiring the land but also of acquiring bundle of fights in
the said land including the right to grant lease. There is,
thus no force in the contention of the learned counsel that
conceptually there is no "cost of acquisition" which is
attributable to the fight of limited enjoyment transferred
by the grant of the lease. So far as the apportionment of
the cost of acquisition is concerned it is a question of
fact to be determined by the Income-Tax Officer in each case
on the basis of evidence. The determination of the cost of
the right to excavate clay in the land in terms of money may
be difficult but is none-the-less of a money value and the
best valuation possible must be made.
Traders And Miners Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 19 October, 1954
In
Traders and Mines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,
(supra) the Income-tax Officer had also determined the cost
of the lease hold fights on proportionate basis. Once the
cost of the lease-hold fights is determined then there is no
difficulty in making apportionment. We, therefore, do not
find any force in the first contention of Mr. Salve and
reject the same.
1