TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (8) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them to construct a building on the said premises. The assessee was also a party to the said agreement. As part of the agreement, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 in consideration of which he permitted the new lessees to put up the construction. He transferred his tenancy rights to Associated Batteries and became a licensee in respect of the premises under Associated Batteries. The sum of Rs. 4,50,000 was received in two instalments of Rs. 2,25,000 each, the first on March 15, 1967, and the second on May 25, 1967. For the assessment year 1967-68, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1967, the Income-tax Officer treated the sum of Rs. 2,25,000 less certain amounts paid to the landlord and solicitor and the statutory exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,83,201 represented capital gains assessable under section 45(1) of the said Act for the assessment year 1967-68 ? Before us, learned counsel raised only one contention based on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294. He submits that, even assuming that the assessee had a capital asset and that the consideration had been received for relinquishing some part of his rights in respect thereof, the entire sum of Rs. 2,25,000 could not have been brought to tax. He points out that the capital gains have to be computed under section 48 of the Income-tax Act which provides for a deduction, among others, of the actual ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e "actual cost" having been ignored in the computation of the capital gain. The question was phrased in the following manner : "Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in computing the capital gains at Rs. 1,83,201 within the meaning of section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" The Tribunal, however, in view of its findings in the appellate order, rejected the application and refused to refer the above question to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act on the ground that its conclusion in this regard was based on facts and that no question of law could arise therefrom. Unfortunately, the assessee did not pursue the matter further under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. It is no doubt true that the mention of section 45(1) in....