Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.45 seconds)

Sunder Katwaru Rajbhar, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Kalyan on 26 February, 2019

The Capital Gain is by virtue of nomenclature is a tax on transfer of Capital Asset by owner and to the extent of ownership, which Honorable members have agreed during the course of Argument and hearing in Original petition that the charge of Capital Gain on the Applicant is to be to the extent of Appellant share is correct proposition and the same cannot be equated with the collection of Capital Gain Tax from Appellant on behalf of other co-owners of the property which was made clear and noted by writer of the judgement in Log book that the recovery of tax dues of co-members can definitely be carried on by the A.O from Power of Attorney Holder, since he has received money on their behalf in his Account. This proposition was argued, accepted by the members in the open court and Decision quoted and copy of judgement / handed over by the L.R of Honorable Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sukumaran in I.T Appeal No 840/2014, submitted that the Capital Gain cannot be taxed in the hands of Power of Attorney holder, 3 MA No.174/Mum/2018 Appellant on identical facts, neither A.R nor members have distinguished.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1