Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1994 (2) TMI 98 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court ruling on capital gains calculation for Bakhtawar Ice Factory sale The Supreme Court confirmed that only Rs. 61,25,000 should be considered for calculating capital gains from the sale of 'Bakhtawar Ice Factory.' The total ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          Supreme Court ruling on capital gains calculation for Bakhtawar Ice Factory sale

                          The Supreme Court confirmed that only Rs. 61,25,000 should be considered for calculating capital gains from the sale of "Bakhtawar Ice Factory." The total sale consideration was determined to be Rs. 1,05,25,000, including the Rs. 39 lakhs paid to R.M. Aga. The Rs. 39 lakhs received by R.M. Aga was held to be capital gains and not business income. The ITAT dismissed the protective assessment of Rs. 39 lakhs in R.M. Aga's hands, upholding its inclusion in the sale consideration for late M.M. Aga.




                          Issues Involved:

                          1. Assessment of long-term capital gains on the sale of "Bakhtawar Ice Factory."
                          2. Determination of the total sale consideration for the property.
                          3. Taxability of Rs. 39 lakhs received by R.M. Aga.
                          4. Nature of Rs. 39 lakhs as either capital gains or income from business/profession.
                          5. Protective assessment of Rs. 39 lakhs in the hands of R.M. Aga.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Assessment of Long-term Capital Gains on the Sale of "Bakhtawar Ice Factory":

                          The property "Bakhtawar Ice Factory" was sold by public auction on 23-4-1984 for Rs. 61,25,000. The Assessing Officer initially assessed the total consideration for the sale of the property at Rs. 1,05,25,000, including Rs. 61,25,000 from the auction, Rs. 39 lakhs received as per Consent Terms dated 26-9-1984, and Rs. 5,00,000 as earnest money. The CIT(A) later concluded that only Rs. 61,25,000 should be considered for calculating capital gains, as confirmed by the Supreme Court.

                          2. Determination of the Total Sale Consideration for the Property:

                          The CIT(A) held that the sale consideration should be Rs. 61,25,000 as per the Supreme Court's confirmation of the auction sale. However, the ITAT concluded that the sum of Rs. 39 lakhs paid to R.M. Aga was part of the sale consideration, as it was paid to dissolve disputes and was linked to the sale of the property. Therefore, the total sale consideration was determined to be Rs. 1,05,25,000.

                          3. Taxability of Rs. 39 Lakhs Received by R.M. Aga:

                          The CIT(A) directed that Rs. 39 lakhs received by R.M. Aga should be taxed as capital gains for relinquishing his rights to the property. The Assessing Officer had assessed this amount as income from "Profits & Gains of business or profession" on a protective basis, arguing that R.M. Aga rendered services by challenging the sale and fulfilling the Consent Decree terms.

                          4. Nature of Rs. 39 Lakhs as Either Capital Gains or Income from Business/Profession:

                          The CIT(A) held that a portion of Rs. 39 lakhs should be treated as long-term capital gains, while the balance should be considered income from an adventure in the nature of trade. The ITAT, however, concluded that the entire amount of Rs. 39 lakhs was part of the sale consideration and should be assessed as capital gains in the hands of late M.M. Aga, not as business income in the hands of R.M. Aga.

                          5. Protective Assessment of Rs. 39 Lakhs in the Hands of R.M. Aga:

                          The ITAT found that the protective assessment of Rs. 39 lakhs in the hands of R.M. Aga was not justified since it was substantially considered part of the sale consideration in the hands of late M.M. Aga. The inclusion of Rs. 39 lakhs as part of the sale consideration for the property was upheld, and the protective assessment was dismissed.

                          Conclusion:

                          The ITAT allowed the Revenue's appeal in the case of late M.M. Aga, confirming the total sale consideration at Rs. 1,05,25,000 and computing capital gains accordingly. The appeal filed by R.M. Aga was also allowed, dismissing the protective assessment of Rs. 39 lakhs as business income. The ITAT emphasized that the Rs. 39 lakhs received by R.M. Aga was part of the sale consideration for the property and should be treated as such for tax purposes.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found