Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › PNB Finance vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

PNB Finance vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Where (pre s. 50B), the assessee’s banking undertaking was transferred by nationalization and it received compensation calculated on the basis of capitalization of last 5 years profits and the question arose whether the said compensation was assessable as capital gains, HELD

As the undertaking was transferred as a going concern and there was no evidence on record to show that the compensation had been arrived at on an item-wise allocation of the various assets of the undertaking and there was no “cost of acquisition” of the undertaking, capital gains was not chargeable.

Note: See Avaya Global Connect vs. ACIT (1.2 MB) (ITAT Mumbai) where despite s. 50B, it was held that the gains are NOT chargeable.

Related Judgements

  1. K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.) (Supreme Court) 

    Cash in bank is conceptually different from cash in hand. It is not permissible for the Revenue to withdraw money from the attached bank accounts. However, as the order u/s 132B was not challenged, no relief given. Directions given for … K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.)…
  2. DCIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies (Supreme Court) 

    Commitment charges paid in respect of borrowed moneys are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act.
  3. State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh (Supreme Court) 

    Where the High Court summarily dismissed an application without giving any reasons HELD that this manner of dealing left a lot to be desired. It was imperative to record reasons and the failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the…
  4. ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch SE (Supreme Court) 

    Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the…
  5. CIT vs. HCL Comnet (Supreme Court) 

    Provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added to the “book profits” for purposes of section 115JA because they merely represent the dimunition in the value of an asset and are not a provision for an unascertained liability.
    Read more ›