2015 (2) TMI 901

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y under the head 'Capital gains'. That being so, it cannot be treated as a casual and nonrecurring receipt under section 10(3) and subject to tax under section 56 of the Act. If the income cannot be taxed under section 45, it cannot be taxed at all. Thus it becomes clear that the appellant- Revenue could have taxed the amount of ₹ 5,00,000 under the head of "Capital gains", which .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tially erred in law and on facts in coming to the conclusion that the income of ₹ 5 lakhs received by the assessee towards surrender of sub-tenancy right is a capital gain and is not assessable as casual income as per section 10(3) read with section 56(1) of the Income-tax Act ? 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee filed its return of income for the assessment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... side the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the extent it taxed the amount of ₹ 5,00,000 received by the respondent-assessee under section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ). Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard. At the very outset, learned counsels for the parties invited the attention of this court to a decision of the hon'ble apex court in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , after deducting ₹ 7,00,000 lakhs as cost of acquisition. On further appeal against the aforesaid order, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee did not incur any costs to acquire leasehold rights and that, if at all, any costs had been incurred, it was incapable of being ascertained since the capital gains could not be computed, as envisaged under section 48 of the Act. On appeal, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not be taxed under section 45, it cannot be taxed at all. 5. Thus, from the above discussion, it becomes clear that the appellant- Revenue could have taxed the amount of ₹ 5,00,000 under the head of Capital gains , which was received towards surrendering of tenancy right from the lessor and not under any other head. We, therefore, do not find that the Appellate Tribunal committed any ju .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X