Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Alapati Venkataramiah vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad on 29 March, 1965

Sh. Jagdish Singh Garcha, Ludhiana vs Assessee on 20 October, 2011

32 Before insertion of the clause (v) & (vi) to section 2(47) of the Act, the position of law was that unless and until a sale deed was executed f or transfer of imm ovable property, the sam e could not be construed as transfer for the purpose of charging capital gain tax. This was particularly so in the light of various judgments 5 particularly the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alapati Venkatramian v CIT (57 ITR 185) (SC). In this case it was held that in the context of transfer for the purpose of capital gain tax, what is m eant b y transfer is the eff ective conveyance of the capital asset by a transferor to the transferee. Delivery of possession and agreement to sell by itself could not constitute conveyance of the im m ovable property. In the meantime apart from this decision a practice came into vogue by which certain properties were being transferred without executing the proper sale deeds. This was being done because there was restriction on sale of properties in various towns e.g. in case of lease hold plots and flats in Delhi if the same were to be transferred, permission was required to be taken from the Government / DDA and transferor was required to pay 50% of the market value - cost (i.e. unearned increase) to the Government. To avoid such payments and / or also to avoid the paym ent of stam p duty or cum bersome procedure of obtaining permission, some properties were being sold by way of sale agreement and also execution of General Power Of Attorney and possession was given on receipt of full consideration without executing the proper sale deeds etc. which as mentioned earlier was not even permissible in some cases. These transactions are popularly called "power of attorney"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Raj Partap Singh, Mohali vs Assessee on 20 October, 2011

32 Before insertion of the clause (v) & (vi) to section 2(47) of the Act, the position of law was that unless and until a sale deed was executed f or transfer of imm ovable property, the sam e could not be construed as transfer for the purpose of charging capital gain tax. This was particularly so in the light of various judgments particularly the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alapati Venkatramian v CIT (57 ITR 185) (SC). In this case it was held that in the context of transfer for the purpose of capital gain tax, what is m eant b y transfer is the eff ective conveyance of the capital asset by a transferor to the transferee. Delivery of possession and agreement to sell by itself could not constitute conveyance of the im m ovable property. In the meantime apart from this decision a practice came into vogue by which certain properties were being transferred without executing the proper sale deeds. This was being done because there was restriction on sale of properties in various towns e.g. in case of lease hold plots and flats in Delhi if the same were to be transferred, permission was required to be taken from the Government / DDA and 5 transferor was required to pay 50% of the market value - cost (i.e. unearned increase) to the Government. To avoid such payments and / or also to avoid the paym ent of stam p duty or cum bersome procedure of obtaining permission, some properties were being sold by way of sale agreement and also execution of General Power Of Attorney and possession was given on receipt of full consideration without executing the proper sale deeds etc. which as mentioned earlier was not even permissible in some cases. These transactions are popularly called "power of attorney"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh, Mohali vs Assessee on 1 August, 2011

32 Before insertion of the clause (v) & (vi) to section 2(47) of the Act, the position of law was that unless and until a sale deed was executed for tr ansfer of immovable pr operty, the sam e could not be construed as transfer for the purpose of charging capital gain tax. This was particularly so in the light of various judgments particularly the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alapati Venkatramian v CIT (57 ITR 185) (SC). In this case it was held that in the context of transfer for the purpose of capital gain tax, what is meant by transfer is the effective conveyance of the capital asset by a transferor to the transferee. Deliver y of possession and agreement to sell by itself could not constitute conve yance of the immovable proper ty. In the meantime apart from this decision a practice came into vogue by w hich certain properties w ere being transferred without executing the proper sale deeds. This was being done because there was restriction on sale of properties in various towns e.g. in case of lease hold plots and flats in Delhi if the same were to be transferred, permission was required to be taken from the Government / DDA and transferor was required to pay 50% of the market value - cost (i.e. unearned increase) to the Government. To avoid such payments and / or also to avoid the pa yment of stamp dut y or cumber some pr ocedure of obtaining permission, some properties were being sold by way of sale agreement and also execution of General Power Of Attorney and possession was given on receipt of full consideration without executing the proper sale deeds etc. which as mentioned earlier was not even permissible in some cases. These transactions are popularly called " power of attor ney" transactions. To avoid these and to stop the leakage of Revenue, the Parliament has inserted clauses (v) & (vi) 6 to section 2( 47) so as such t ype of tr ansactions are also be brought in to taxation net. However, interpretations of these clauses has led to lot of litigation and the main point of litigation was that at what point of time the possession can be said to have been given. In the present case, the Revenue has mainly relied on two decisions namely (i) Cha tur b hu j Dw ark a da s Ka pa d ia v CIT 2 60 ITR 4 91 ( Bo m.) a nd ; ( ii) Au tho rity fo r A dvance Ru lin g ( AAR) Ne w Delh i in the case of Ja sbir Singh Sarkaria 294 ITR 196.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avtar Singh Brar, Chandigarh vs Assessee on 23 February, 2011

32 Before insertion of the clause (v) & (vi) to section 2(47) of the Act, the position of law was that unless and until a sale deed was executed for transfer of immovable property, the same could not be construed as transfer for the purpose of charging capital gain tax. This was particularly so in the light of various judgments particularly the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alapati Venkatramian v CIT (57 ITR 185) (SC). In this case it was held that in the context of transfer for the purpose of capital gain tax, what is meant by transfer is the effective conveyance of the capital asset by a transferor to the transferee. Delivery of possession and agreement to sell by itself could not constitute conveyance of the immovable property. In the meantime apart from this decision a practice came into vogue by which certain properties were being transferred without executing the proper sale deeds. This was being done because there was restriction on sale of properties in various towns e.g. in case of lease hold plots and flats in Delhi if the same were to be transferred, permission was required to be taken from the Government / DDA and transferor was required to pay 50% of the market value - cost (i.e. unearned increase) to the Government. To avoid such payments and / or also to avoid the payment of stamp duty or cumbersome procedure of obtaining permission, some properties were being sold by way of sale agreement and also execution of General Power Of Attorney and possession was given on receipt of full consideration without executing the proper sale deeds etc. which as mentioned earlier was not even permissible in some cases. These transactions are popularly called "power of attorney" transactions. To avoid these and to stop the leakage of Revenue, the Parliament has inserted clauses (v) & (vi) to section 2(47) so as such type of transactions are also be brought in to taxation net. However, interpretations of these clauses has led to lot of litigation and the main point of litigation was that at what point of time the possession can be said to have been given. In the present 50 case, the Revenue has mainly relied on two decisions namely
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 73 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Hussan Lal Puri, Mohali vs Assessee on 19 August, 2011

32 Before insertion of the clause (v) & (vi) to section 2(47) of the Act, the position of law was that unless and until a sale deed w as executed for transfer of immovable property, the same could not be construed as transfer for the purpose of charging capital gain tax. This was particularly so in the light of various judgments particularly the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alapati Venkatramian v CIT (57 ITR 185) (SC). In this case it was held that in the context of transfer for the purpose of capital gain tax, w hat is meant b y transfer is the effective conveyance of the capital asset by a transferor to the transferee. Delivery of possession and agreement to sell by itself could not constitute conve yance of the immovable property. In the meantime apart from this decision a practice came into vogue by which certain properties were being transferred without executing the proper sale deeds. This was being done because there was restriction on sale of properties in various towns e.g. in case of lease hold plots and flats in Delhi if the same were to be transferred, permission was required to be taken from the Government / DDA and transferor was required to pay 50% of the market value - cost (i.e. unearned increase) to the Government. To avoid such payments and / or also to avoid the payment of stamp duty or cumbersome procedure of obtaining permission, some properties were being sold by way of sale agreement and also execution of General Power Of Attorney and possession was given on receipt of full consideration without executing the proper sale deeds etc. which as mentioned earlier was not even permissible in some cases. These transactions are popularly called "power of attorney"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1