Kuttukaran Machine Tools vs Cit on 17 September, 2002
In fact this court in F.X Periera's case (supra) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185(SC).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)Kuttukaran Machine Tools vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 September, 2002
In fact this Court in F.X. Periera's case (supra) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC).
Blue Bay Fisheries (P.) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 January, 1987
12. The expression "transfer" was considered by the Supreme Court in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185, in the context of
section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (the "1922 Act''). The Supreme Court stated (p. 192):
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs F.X. Periera And Sons (Travancore) Pvt. ... on 7 December, 1989
An incidental question, however, would arise and it is this : Is it enough to show that there is a transfer in the literal sense of that expression ? The answer is no ; because, in order to attract Section 45, it should be established that, by the transfer, the title to property stands passed to the purchaser. If what was sold was immovable property, it should further be established that the same was conveyed by a registered deed. It is the date of the execution of the registered deed, and not the delivery of possession that will be relevant in such circumstances, for, on that date alone, the title to property passes (See Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185 (SC)). This decision, in our view, gives the quietus to the dispute whether a business as a going concern would constitute a capital asset within the meaning of Section 45. It is a capital asset, the Supreme Court observes. Applying this principle to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the view that title to the land and building and the plant and machinery, etc. (the business was sold as a going concern), passed to the State on the date of the execution of the registered deed, namely, April 14, 1971 only, and not on January 12, 1956, the date on which the agreement was executed.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs C.C. Transport And Co. on 29 June, 2006
6. It is true that Section 2(47) of the Act has been couched in the widest possible terms so as to include within the meaning of "transfer" even any arrangement which has the effect of enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property. But then Sub-clause (v) and (vi) of Section 2(47) which give wider amplification to the concept of "transfer" under the IT law were introduced in the definition only by the Finance Act, 1987 only w.e.f. 1st April, 1988, i.e., long after the assessment year in question. Prior to the insertion of the above two sub-clauses, the expression "transfer" had a restricted meaning and the interpretation given to the expression "transfer" by the apex Court in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT was holding the field. As per the said interpretation, mere delivery of possession of immovable property could not by itself be treated as equivalent to conveyance of immovable property and title to immovable property could not pass to the transferee till a deed of conveyance was duly executed and registered. Similarly, in the case of "house property" falling under Section 22 of the Act, a person in possession under an agreement falling under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act may be an owner within the meaning of Clause (iiia) of Section 27 of the Act after the introduction of the said clause w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 by the Finance Act, 1987. But until the insertion of the said clause, owner could only be a person satisfying the requirements of an owner under the common law, that is, a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after due compliance with the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act, etc.
1