Analjit Singh v. DCIT - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2017 TaxPub(DT) 5225 (Del-Trib) Analjit Singh v. Dy. CIT INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Capital gains--Computation under section 48Full value of consideration vis-a-vis fair market value (FMV)----Where assessee sold unquoted shares of SBPL, the same would be valued at Rs. 131.86 per share instead of Rs. 63.69 on the basis of gain market value and not the full value of consideration received in view of agreement entered into by parties and section 50CA was not applicable for the relevant year as it will be applicable from 1-4-2018.--Assessee had sold shares of SBPL@63.69 per share to CGP which was an affiliate of VIHL and resultantly offered long-term capital gains to tax under section 45 read with section 48. Assessee had arrived at the valuer on basis of report of valuer KML, who valued shares at the rate of 5.40 per share. thus, AO worked out the capital gain by taking the sale consideration received by assessee from the sale of shares by taking the value per share at Rs. 142.70 and thereby worked out the short-term capital gain, whereas assessee disputed rate adopted by AO and also claimed it was a long-term capital gain. CIT(A) confirmed order of AO. He, however, also applied section 50D. Assessee contended that FMV cannot be subsituated in place of cost of each share received.Held: The sale value of SBPL as shown by the assessee is not in consance with the conytactual obligations entered by the parties under various Framework Agreements wherein it has been repeatedly envisaged that the value of SBPL was linked with the FMV of HEL/VIL and therefore, the share value as determined accordingly woulf get enhanced accordingly , the salw consideration received by the assessee as per the sale purchase agreement of 12-3-2014 cannot be rckoned as 'accured' to the assessee in terms of section 48. What has been accrued to the assessee is the price of the shares which was to be determined as per the mechanism provided in the Framework Agreements, which stipulated FMV of VIL.Section 50D as invoked by CIT(A) would not be applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case; and if at all it could have been brought to tax in the hands of the transferor under the deeming fiction of section 50CA or section 56(2)(x), then same are not applicable for the year under consideration as these provisions are applicable from the assessment year 2017-18. The value of the SBPL shares as per FMV of VIL would be Rs. 131.86 per share as determined above; and accordingly, AO was directed to compute the capital gain taking the sale value of SBPL at Rs. 131.86 per share. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 48 Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 50C Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 56(2)(x) *REFERRED :* Mithlesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del), Trishul Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad), Asstt.CIT v. KS Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (AP), CIT v. Maithreyi Pai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Karn), CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 (Mad), CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 (Karn), Praveen Gupta v. Asstt. CIT ITA No. 2558/Del/2010, dt. 13-8-2010, S. Balan Alias Shanmugam Balkrishnan Chettiar. v. Dy. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ 397 (Pune-Trib) and Gayatri Maheshwari v. ITO [ITA No. 208/Jodh/2017, dt. 5-5-2017. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC), Taparia Tools Limited v. J.CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC),. Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H), Dr. Davendra D. Patel v. ACIT [Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2002 with Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2002 to TA No. 24 of 2002, dt. 21-11-2014], CIT v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) (heavy reliance was placed on this decision), CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC), K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC), CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 ITR 679 (Cal), CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Ors. (2001) 250 ITR 531 (Del), CIT v. Dr. Karni Singh (2002) 256 ITR 165 (Del), CIT v. Smt. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Del), CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 309 ITR 233 (Del), Dev Kumar Jain v. ITO & Anr. (2009) 309 ITR 240 (Del), Sanjay Chawla. v. Income Tax Officer 82 TTJ 407 (Del), Bigjos Stores (P) Limited v. ACIT 106 Taxman 127 (Del.), Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC), DIT(E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council (2000) 244 ITR 734 (Del), CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del), CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 346 (Del), DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital 300 ITR 75 (Del.), CIT v. P. Khrishna Warrier (1994) 208 ITR 823 (Ker), CIT v. Harishchandra Gupta (1981) 132 ITR 799 (Ori), Vodafone v. UOI CA No. 733/2012 (SC), CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) and CIT v. Nilofar I. Singh (2009) 309 ITR 323 (Del). FAVOUR : Against the assessee (Partly). A.Y. : 2014-15 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Capital gains--Cost of acquisitionInterest on loan----Under the scope and provision of section 55(2)(aa) read with sub-clause (iii) thereto, cost of interest expenditure on loan taken to purchase share cannot be allowed as deduction as cost of acquisition for computing the capital gain on sale of right shares.--The assessee while computing the long-term capital gain on the sale of shares had reduced the interest expenditure on the loan taken for acquisition of right shares. The AO denied capitalization of interest expenditure as part of cost of acquisition/cost of improvement while calculating the capital gains on sale of shares of SBPL Assessee's claim had been that since the interest expenditure incurred on such borrowing had a direct nexus with the acquisition of the shares of the aforesaid company, therefore, same was capitalized as part of the cost of acquisition of such shares for the purposes of computing capital gain arising from transfer thereof.Held: Whence the cost of acquisition with regard to the additional financial assets, i.e., right shares has been strictly circumscribed to the amount actually paid for acquiring such shares, then it is not open to include any other costs like interest expenditure incurred or accrued on loan taken for acquiring the right shares. Had there been the intention of the legislature to allow any additional cost to such kind of additional financial assets, then there was no requirement to insert Part A in clause (aa) and sub-clause (iii) which specifically confines the cost of acquisition to mean actual amount paid. Thus, under the scope and provision of section 55(2)(aa) read with sub clause (iii) thereto, in case of right shares the cost of interest expenditure on loan taken to purchase shares could not be allowed as deduction as cost of acquisition for computing the capital gain on sale of right shares. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 55(2) Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 48 *Distinguished:Mithlesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del), Trishul Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad), Asstt. CIT v. KS Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (AP), CIT v. Maithreyi Pai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Karn), CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 (Mad), CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 (Karn), Praveen Gupta v. Asstt. CIT (ITA No. 2558/Del/2010, dt. 13-8-2010) S. Balan Alias Shanmugam Balkrishnan Chettiar. v. Dy. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ 397 (Pune-Trib), Gayatri Maheshwari v. ITO [ITA No. 208/Jodh/2017, dt. 5-5-2017], Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) and Taparia Tools Limited v. Joint CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC). REFERRED :* FAVOUR : Against the assessee. A.Y. : 2014-15 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 --Capital gain--Long-term or short-termTransfer of unlisted shares before 1-4-2014----Gain on transfer of unlisted shares would be taxable as 'long-term capital gains' and not 'short-term capital gain' because newly inserted second proviso to section 2(42A), would be applicable prospectively, i.e., after 31-3-2014, and not prior to that date. --Assessee sold certain shares and in return disclosed long-term capital gains. It was not in dispute that the period of holding of unlisted shares, i.e., 'rights shares' of SBPL is more than 12 months and less than 36 months (23 months). The assessee had offered the gains arising from sale of such shares as 'long-term capital gain' which had been re-characterized/reclassified as short-term capital gains by the Revenue authorities. CIT(A) held that since the impugned transaction of the transfer of unlisted shares of SBPL took place before 1-4-2014 and not between 1-4-2014 to 10-7-2014, therefore, the benefit of the newly inserted 2nd proviso to section 2(42A) was not available to the assessee.Held: In the instant case, the shares had been transferred prior to 31-3-2014, therefore, the newly amended Act would not be applicable at all and the assessee would get the benefit of shorter period, i.e., period of less than 36 months as given in section 2(42A) read with proviso thereto as per the relevant provision existed for the assessment year 2014-15. Thus, the AO as well as Commissioner (Appeals) were not justified in law in re-characterizing/re-classifying the 'long-term capital gain' to 'short-term capital gain' shown by the assessee. Accordingly, the gain on transfer of SBPL's share would be taxable as 'long-term capital gains' and not short-term capital gains. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 45 Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 2(42A) Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 2(29A) *REFERRED :* FAVOUR : In assessee's favour. A.Y. : IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. & O.P. KANT, A.M. Analjit Singh v. DCIT ITA No. 4737/Del/2017 1 December, 2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Assessee Allowed. *Referred:* CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) Taparia Tools Limited v. Joint CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC) CIT v. M/s. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) Union of India & Anr. v. Vodafone International Holding BV. [Civil Appeal No.733 of 2012, dt. 20-3-2012] Vodafone International Holdings BV. v. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC) Navin Jindal v. Asstt. CIT (2010) 320 ITR 708 (SC) Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Limited v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 509 (SC) South Madras Electric Supply Corporation & Ors. v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 294 (SC) Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) CIT, Madras v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Limited (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) KP Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam, & Anr.(1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, Bombay City-II (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) CIT, West Bengal III v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC) Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited v. CIT, West Bengal (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) CIT, Calcutta v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC) Morvi Industries Limited v. CIT (Central), Calcutta (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company Limited v. CIT (Central), Calcutta (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) CIT, West Bengal & Anr. v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT, Bombay (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2017 TaxPub(DT) 5225 (Del-Trib)

Analjit Singh v. Dy. CIT

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Capital gains--Computation under section 48Full value of consideration vis-a-vis fair market value (FMV)----Where assessee sold unquoted shares of SBPL, the same would be valued at Rs. 131.86 per share instead of Rs. 63.69 on the basis of gain market value and not the full value of consideration received in view of agreement entered into by parties and section 50CA was not applicable for the relevant year as it will be applicable from 1-4-2018.--Assessee had sold shares of SBPL@63.69 per share to CGP which was an affiliate of VIHL and resultantly offered long-term capital gains to tax under section 45 read with section 48. Assessee had arrived at the valuer on basis of report of valuer KML, who valued shares at the rate of 5.40 per share. thus, AO worked out the capital gain by taking the sale consideration received by assessee from the sale of shares by taking the value per share at Rs. 142.70 and thereby worked out the short-term capital gain, whereas assessee disputed rate adopted by AO and also claimed it was a long-term capital gain. CIT(A) confirmed order of AO. He, however, also applied section 50D. Assessee contended that FMV cannot be subsituated in place of cost of each share received.Held: The sale value of SBPL as shown by the assessee is not in consance with the conytactual obligations entered by the parties under various Framework Agreements wherein it has been repeatedly envisaged that the value of SBPL was linked with the FMV of HEL/VIL and therefore, the share value as determined accordingly woulf get enhanced accordingly , the salw consideration received by the assessee as per the sale purchase agreement of 12-3-2014 cannot be rckoned as 'accured' to the assessee in terms of section 48. What has been accrued to the assessee is the price of the shares which was to be determined as per the mechanism provided in the Framework Agreements, which stipulated FMV of VIL.Section 50D as invoked by CIT(A) would not be applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case; and if at all it could have been brought to tax in the hands of the transferor under the deeming fiction of section 50CA or section 56(2)(x), then same are not applicable for the year under consideration as these provisions are applicable from the assessment year 2017-18. The value of the SBPL shares as per FMV of VIL would be Rs. 131.86 per share as determined above; and accordingly, AO was directed to compute the capital gain taking the sale value of SBPL at Rs. 131.86 per share.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 48

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 50C

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 56(2)(x)

REFERRED : Mithlesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del), Trishul Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad), Asstt.CIT v. KS Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (AP), CIT v. Maithreyi Pai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Karn), CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 (Mad), CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 (Karn), Praveen Gupta v. Asstt. CIT ITA No. 2558/Del/2010, dt. 13-8-2010, S. Balan Alias Shanmugam Balkrishnan Chettiar. v. Dy. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ 397 (Pune-Trib) and Gayatri Maheshwari v. ITO [ITA No. 208/Jodh/2017, dt. 5-5-2017. Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC), Taparia Tools Limited v. J.CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC),. Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H), Dr. Davendra D. Patel v. ACIT [Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2002 with Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2002 to TA No. 24 of 2002, dt. 21-11-2014], CIT v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC) (heavy reliance was placed on this decision), CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC), K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC), CIT v. Smt. Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 ITR 679 (Cal), CIT v. Ms. Sushila Mittal & Ors. (2001) 250 ITR 531 (Del), CIT v. Dr. Karni Singh (2002) 256 ITR 165 (Del), CIT v. Smt. Sushila Devi (2002) 256 ITR 179 (Del), CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 309 ITR 233 (Del), Dev Kumar Jain v. ITO & Anr. (2009) 309 ITR 240 (Del), Sanjay Chawla. v. Income Tax Officer 82 TTJ 407 (Del), Bigjos Stores (P) Limited v. ACIT 106 Taxman 127 (Del.), Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC), DIT(E) v. Apparel Export Promotion Council (2000) 244 ITR 734 (Del), CIT v. Neo Polypack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del), CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 346 (Del), DIT v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital 300 ITR 75 (Del.), CIT v. P. Khrishna Warrier (1994) 208 ITR 823 (Ker), CIT v. Harishchandra Gupta (1981) 132 ITR 799 (Ori), Vodafone v. UOI CA No. 733/2012 (SC), CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) and CIT v. Nilofar I. Singh (2009) 309 ITR 323 (Del).

FAVOUR : Against the assessee (Partly).

A.Y. : 2014-15

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Capital gains--Cost of acquisitionInterest on loan----Under the scope and provision of section 55(2)(aa) read with sub-clause (iii) thereto, cost of interest expenditure on loan taken to purchase share cannot be allowed as deduction as cost of acquisition for computing the capital gain on sale of right shares.--The assessee while computing the long-term capital gain on the sale of shares had reduced the interest expenditure on the loan taken for acquisition of right shares. The AO denied capitalization of interest expenditure as part of cost of acquisition/cost of improvement while calculating the capital gains on sale of shares of SBPL Assessee's claim had been that since the interest expenditure incurred on such borrowing had a direct nexus with the acquisition of the shares of the aforesaid company, therefore, same was capitalized as part of the cost of acquisition of such shares for the purposes of computing capital gain arising from transfer thereof.Held: Whence the cost of acquisition with regard to the additional financial assets, i.e., right shares has been strictly circumscribed to the amount actually paid for acquiring such shares, then it is not open to include any other costs like interest expenditure incurred or accrued on loan taken for acquiring the right shares. Had there been the intention of the legislature to allow any additional cost to such kind of additional financial assets, then there was no requirement to insert Part A in clause (aa) and sub-clause (iii) which specifically confines the cost of acquisition to mean actual amount paid. Thus, under the scope and provision of section 55(2)(aa) read with sub clause (iii) thereto, in case of right shares the cost of interest expenditure on loan taken to purchase shares could not be allowed as deduction as cost of acquisition for computing the capital gain on sale of right shares.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 55(2)

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 48

Distinguished:Mithlesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del), Trishul Investments Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 305 ITR 434 (Mad), Asstt. CIT v. KS Gupta (1979) 119 ITR 372 (AP), CIT v. Maithreyi Pai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Karn), CIT v. K. Raja Gopala Rao (2001) 252 ITR 459 (Mad), CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 (Karn), Praveen Gupta v. Asstt. CIT (ITA No. 2558/Del/2010, dt. 13-8-2010) S. Balan Alias Shanmugam Balkrishnan Chettiar. v. Dy. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ 397 (Pune-Trib), Gayatri Maheshwari v. ITO [ITA No. 208/Jodh/2017, dt. 5-5-2017], Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) and Taparia Tools Limited v. Joint CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2014-15

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Capital gain--Long-term or short-termTransfer of unlisted shares before 1-4-2014----Gain on transfer of unlisted shares would be taxable as 'long-term capital gains' and not 'short-term capital gain' because newly inserted second proviso to section 2(42A), would be applicable prospectively, i.e., after 31-3-2014, and not prior to that date. --Assessee sold certain shares and in return disclosed long-term capital gains. It was not in dispute that the period of holding of unlisted shares, i.e., 'rights shares' of SBPL is more than 12 months and less than 36 months (23 months). The assessee had offered the gains arising from sale of such shares as 'long-term capital gain' which had been re-characterized/reclassified as short-term capital gains by the Revenue authorities. CIT(A) held that since the impugned transaction of the transfer of unlisted shares of SBPL took place before 1-4-2014 and not between 1-4-2014 to 10-7-2014, therefore, the benefit of the newly inserted 2nd proviso to section 2(42A) was not available to the assessee.Held: In the instant case, the shares had been transferred prior to 31-3-2014, therefore, the newly amended Act would not be applicable at all and the assessee would get the benefit of shorter period, i.e., period of less than 36 months as given in section 2(42A) read with proviso thereto as per the relevant provision existed for the assessment year 2014-15. Thus, the AO as well as Commissioner (Appeals) were not justified in law in re-characterizing/re-classifying the 'long-term capital gain' to 'short-term capital gain' shown by the assessee. Accordingly, the gain on transfer of SBPL's share would be taxable as 'long-term capital gains' and not short-term capital gains.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 45

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 2(42A)

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 2(29A)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. :

IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. & O.P. KANT, A.M.

Analjit Singh v. DCIT

ITA No. 4737/Del/2017

1 December, 2017 A.Y. 2014-15

Assessee Allowed.

Referred:

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC)

Taparia Tools Limited v. Joint CIT (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC)

CIT v. M/s. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC)

Union of India & Anr. v. Vodafone International Holding BV. [Civil Appeal No.733 of 2012, dt. 20-3-2012]

Vodafone International Holdings BV. v. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 341 ITR 1 (SC)

Navin Jindal v. Asstt. CIT (2010) 320 ITR 708 (SC)

Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Limited v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 509 (SC)

South Madras Electric Supply Corporation & Ors. v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 294 (SC)

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)

CIT, Madras v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Limited (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC)

KP Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam, & Anr.(1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)

Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, Bombay City-II (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)

CIT, West Bengal III v. Rajendra Prasad Moody (1978) 115 ITR 519 (SC)

Sutlej Cotton Mills Limited v. CIT, West Bengal (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC)

CIT, Calcutta v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407 (SC)

Morvi Industries Limited v. CIT (Central), Calcutta (1971) 82 ITR 835 (SC)

Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company Limited v. CIT (Central), Calcutta (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC)

CIT, West Bengal & Anr. v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC)

Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT, Bombay (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC)