This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 45(3) : Capital gains – Transfer of capital asset to firm – AOP – I Introduction of development rights by way of capital contribution- Even though a transfer but it is not a sale because there neither any receipt nor any accrual of any consideration- Provisions of section 50C of the Act could not be applied to sale development rights – When there is inconsistency in special provision and general provision – Special provision will prevail .[ S.50C ]

Network Construction Company v .ACIT ( 2020) 185 ITD 318 /119 taxmann.com 186/ (2021) 209 TTJ 900/197 DTR 433 ( Mum) (Trib ) www.itatonline.org

S. 50 : Capital gains–Slump sale- Deemed” short term capital gains -Undertaking is sold as a running business with all assets and liabilities for a slump price, no part of the consideration can be attributed to depreciable assets-If the undertaking is held for more than three years, it constitutes a “long-term capital asset” and the gains are assessable as a long-term capital gain- Sale of entire business as running concern which qualifies to be long term capital asset is different from sale of one or more block of assets used in business as such. Assessee’s treatment of offering the gains as long term capital gains with consequential benefits under section 48(2) upheld . [S. 45, 48,50(2), 50B]

CIT v. Equinox Solution Pvt Ltd (2017) 393 ITR 566/247 Taxman 89/294 CTR 1/150 DTR 137(SC)

45(5) : Capital gains – Compulsory acquisition of land – Accrual – Enhanced compensation – Interest – Taxable in the year of receipt and not to be spread over – Individual v. Association of Persons [S. 2(31), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 28]

CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya (2014) 367 ITR 498/109 DTR 65/271 CTR 31/ (2015) 229 Taxman 138 (SC)

S.45 : Capital gains- Income from other Sources – A receipt that is capital in nature cannot be assessed under the head income from other source- Tenancy right is a capital asset the surrender of which would attract capital gains – Amount is not taxable under capital gains as cost of acquisition of tenancy right is indeterminate [ S 10(3) 14, 48 ,56 ]

CIT v. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. (2005) 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713/193 CTR 578/185 Taxation 471 (SC)

S. 45: Capital gains – Goodwill — Initially generated goodwill — cannot be regarded as ‘Asset’ – Transfer does not give rise to capital gains tax [S. 2(14), 2(47), 48, 49, 50 , 55]

CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1/21 CTR 138 (SC)

S. 45: Capital gains – Retirement of a partner – Amount received in respect of his share in the partnership including goodwill – Amount not taxable as capital gains [S. 2(14), 2(47) ,48]

Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC)

.S. 45: Capital gains – Conversion of proprietary business into firm – Amounts to transfer of interest in property to other partners – No consideration received – No capital gains tax [S. 2(47), 48]

CIT v. H. Rajan and H. Kannan (1999) 236 ITR 42/153 CTR 11 (SC)

45: Capital asset- Personal effects – Capital gains- Sovereigns and silver coins which were customarily used for puja purposes and other ritual purposes could not be designated as effects meant for personal use [ S.2(14) , Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 , S. 2(4A), 12B]

H. H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 61/1976 CTR 188 (SC)

S. 45: Capital gains –Transfer – Extinguishment of rights – Not limited to transfer – Extends to extinguishment of rights independent of or otherwise than on account of transfer. [S. 2 (47) (ii), 47(ii) , 47(vii), 49(2), Companies Act , 1956 , S 391(2) , 394 ]

CIT v. Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323/115 Taxman 326/166 CTR 201 (SC)

S. 44AB: Audit of accounts – Only Chartered Accountants can audit accounts of business of an assessee – Income Tax Practitioners do not have the same expertise – Section does not violate Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India – Constitutionally validity of provision upheld [S. 288(2), Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 14 , 19]

T.D. Venkata Rao v. UOI (1999) 237 ITR 315/103 Taxman 621/153 CTR 203 (SC)