Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs T.N. Aravinda Reddy on 1 February, 1978

Wipro Limited vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 August, 2021

much has been argued on behalf of the assessee that his is not a case of fresh assessment/re-assessment, and therefore 15 the impugned order is liable to be voided, whereas the Revenue has contended to the contrary; therefore, it becomes necessary to discuss these concepts. While juxtaposing contextual construction qua literal interpretation of statutes, Justice Krishna Iyer in CIT vs. ARAVIND REDDY, AIR 1980 SC 96 observed:
Karnataka High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document

B.Anitha vs The State Of Telangana, And 5 Others on 9 January, 2023

In our view, the ratio of the said decision could not have been made applicable while interpreting the word "transfer" as contained in Section - 5A of the Act, the scheme of which is different as noticed by us. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy, , Commissioner of Income Tax v. Podar Cement Private Limited, , and Balraj v. Commissioner of Income Tax, , wherein in a different context the words "owner" and "transfer" were construed.
Telangana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

T.N. Vasavan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 September, 1991

9. The assessing authority, therefore, is bound to treat the" capital gains "which, but for Section 64, should have been assessed in the hands of the wife, as the capital gains of the assessee liable to be assessed in his hands in the same way in which the same would have been assessed in the hands of the wife. The capital gains is chargeable in terms of Section 54 read with Section 72 of the Act. The facts of the case do not attract the provisions of Section 72. What about Section 54? The main purpose of the section is only to give relief in respect of profits on the sale of residential houses. Construing this section, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Aravinda Reddy (T. N.) [1979] 120 ITR 46, 48, has observed that if you sell your house to make a profit, pay Caesar what is due to him unless it be that you have bought or built another house, subject to the conditions of Section 54(1). If that be the position, the capital gains in question, inasmuch as the same docs not arise from out of the acquisition of a house property, would not attract Section 54. We, accordingly, hold that the finding of the Tribunal, namely, that "the capital gains arising from the compulsory acquisition of the land of the assessee's wife of an extent of 2.45 acres has to be treated separately and that there is no scope for the application of Section 54(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, in respect thereof" is beyond challenge.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Konkana Ravinder Goud And Ors. vs Bhavanarishi Co-Operative House ... on 5 September, 2003

In our view, the ratio of the said decision could not have been made applicable while interpreting the word "transfer" as contained in Section 5-A of the Act, the scheme of which is different as noticed by us. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy, , Commissioner of Indicome Tax v. Podar Cement Private Limited, , and Balraj v. Commissioner of Income Tax, , wherein in a different context the words "owner" and "transfer" were construed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 60 - Cited by 12 - B S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next