Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)
Tax - I vs Smt. Shikha Roy on 8 February, 2022 cites

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

Further, the Court took note of the circular issued by the CBDT being Circular No. 684 dated 10th June, 1994, which was issued to meet the situation created by the decision in B. C. Srinivasa Setty (supra). By Finance Act, 1994, Section 55(2) was amended to provide the cost of acquisition, inter alia, the tenancy right could be taken as nil. By this amendment the judicial interpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the provisions relating to capital gains was met.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 859 - R S Pathak - Full Document

A. Gasper vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta on 21 August, 1991

The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on its part re-examined the conditions of the agreement and as to how the parties understood the nature of transaction and found that the payment of Rs.8 lakhs was rightly claimed as cost of acquisition in computation of capital gain and the finding of the assessing officer that the assessee had not paid any price for purchasing the tenancy right is false. The Tribunal noted the decision of this Court in the case A. Gasper Vs. CIT 1979 (117) ITR 581 (Cal) wherein it was held that the monthly tenancy of the assessee was a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. Further, it was held that the assessee's monthly tenancy right or the leasehold right is a capital asset and on such transfer his rights in it stood extinguished and the amount received by the assessee must be held 7 to be assessable to tax as capital gains in the hands of the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 45 - S Ranganathan - Full Document
1