Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 2350 2011 SLD 2350 (2011) 330 ITR 322
Karnataka High Court

D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Income Tax

v.

H.S. Ramachandra Rao

Law:

Section:

Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income - Chargeable Where assessee had received a sum for relinquishing secretaryship of an educational society, amount received by assessee could not be treated as capital receipt since in forgoing life membership or secretaryship, there was no capital asset which had been transferred by assessee [Block Period : 1-4-1990 to 14-7-2000] [In favour of revenue] CIT v. H.S. Ramachandra Rao [2009] 226 CTR (Kar.) 260. During the course of search proceedings, the assessee had admitted that he had received from one K.R., chairman of Paramahamsa Foundation & Trust, Bangalore a sum of Rs. 42 lakhs for relinquishing his life membership and secretaryship in Jayanagar Education Society. In response to the notice issued by the authorities under section 158BC the assessee filed block return declaring thereunder undisclosed income at nil and in the said block return in the statement enclosed to part III of the return pertaining to total income and loss for the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee had mentioned that he had treated the sum received from K.R. for relinquishing two posts held by him in Jayanagar Education Society as a capital receipt. The AO, however, treated a sum of Rs. 37.54 lakhs as the assessee's income from other sources. Held that the amount received by the assessee could not be treated as a capital receipt since in forgoing life membership or secretaryship, there was no capital asset which had been transferred by the assessee. Further, the assessee was not earning any income or making profit out of the said posts and by virtue of relinquishing the same, the assessee did not lose monetarily and as such the amount received from KR by the assessee could not be termed or construed as capital receipt. M.V. Seshachala for the Appellant. S. Parthasarathi for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J.: This appeal by the Revenue under section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (Act, for short) is against the order dt. 15th Dec, 2003 passed by Tribunal, Bangalore Bench-B in IT(SS)A No. 49/Bang/2003 relating to the block assessment period 1st April, 1990 to 14th July, 2000. 2. The assessee is an individual. On 14th July, 2000…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492