1998 (1) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns of Rs. 50,000 received as compensation for vacating the leasehold premises ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tenancy right of the assessee in 13, Narindra Place, New Delhi, was a capital asset ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was relinquishment of the capital asset under s. 2(47) on the assessee vacating the said premises ?" 2. The assessee had received Rs. 50,000 on 7th Jan., 1973, from Northern Enterprises (P.) Ltd., as compensation for surrendering possession of house No. 13, Narindra Place, New Delhi. The house was rented by the father of the assessee and on his death, the tenancy rights had devolved on the assessee. The case of the assessee was that the te....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n received by the assessee was also not taxable. In forming this opinion, the Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court decision in Jagdev Singh Mumick vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 500 (Del) : TC 21R.266, and the Madras High Court decision in CIT vs. K. Rathnam Nadar (1969) 71 ITR 433 (Mad) : TC 20R.426. Subsequent to the passing of the order of the Tribunal, we have available before us yet another Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Shiv Charan Singh vs. CIT (1985) 47 CTR (Del) 12 : (1984) 149 ITR 29 (Del) : TC 20R.233, wherein on an analysis of the relevant provisions of the IT Act, the view of the law taken by the Delhi High Court is that the cost of the assessee in the acquisition of the asset is clearly contemplated in the....