SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Cal) 230

S.C.DEB, SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA
A. GASPER – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AJIT SEN GUPTA, D.K.CHATTERJI, MEGHNATH BANERJI, PRABIR MAJUMDAR

SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA, J.

( 1 ) WE are concerned with the following questions in this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's right of tenancy under the landlords constituted a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2 (14) of the Income-tax Act ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a transfer of the assessee's right of tenancy under the landlords within the meaning of Section 2 (47) of the said Act ? (3) If the answer to question No. (2) is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the 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 ?"

( 2 ) THE assessment year is 1967-68 for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1967. The assessee is an individual and derived income practically from all sources including income from sub-letting premises No. 240e,



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top