Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 2(14),(47),45

(a) Income tax---Capital gains--'Capital asset"---Monthly tenant---Lump sum received in consideration of permission to new lessee to put up construction and becoming licensee---Whether "capital asset"---Whether capital gains arise---No evidence before Tribunal regarding cost of acquisition---Contention that actual cost cannot be ascertained---Specific question refused by Tribunal to be referred Contention not raised before High Court---Not permitted to be raised before Supreme Court---Income-tax Act, 1961, Ss.2(14), (47) & 45. The appellant who, since 1940, was a monthly tenant in certain premises, was a party to an agreement between the landlords and new lessees for leasing out the premises to the new lessees and permitting them to construct a new building thereon. In consideration of a lump sum which was paid in two years in two halves, the appellant permitted the new lessees to put up the construction and he transferred his tenancy rights to them and became a licensee under them. The Income-tax Officer assessed a sum of Rs.1,83,201 as capital gains for the assessment year 1967-68. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the assessment. The appellant had submitted before the Tribunal that the monthly lease was not acquired by the appellant at any ascertainable cost and assuming that the lease was a capital asset, it was of such a nature that its actual cost of acquisition could not be ascertained. But the Tribunal took the view that, since the appellant had not placed any materials regarding the actual cost, the capital gains as computed were taxable without any further deduction. In his reference application, a question was raised on the appellant's contention, but the Tribunal rejected it on the ground that its conclusion was based on facts; and the appellant did not pursue the matter further under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Nor did the appellant urge the contention before the High Court on a reference of other questions including a question, which if widely interpreted might by implication carry consideration of the deductions permissible under section 48. The High Court, on the reference, held that…

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