Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.03 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Markapakula Agamma on 20 January, 1987

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Manoharsinhji P. Jadeja on 9 December, 2004

16. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Markapakula Agamma, (1987) 165 ITR 386 was once again called to resolve almost a similar controversy between the assessee and the Revenue. There the assessee was a protected tenant and acquired rights in the land itself by virtue of Section 40(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The said rights in the land came to be compulsorily acquired by the State Government pursuant to acquisition proceedings for the purpose of the Housing Board and the lands vested in the State Government. Out of the total compensation paid by the State Government the protected tenant was entitled to 60% on the basis of provision of the aforesaid Tenancy and Agricultural Act. In relation to the said compensation question arose as to whether the assessee was liable to be charged under the head 'Capital gains'.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Shri Vijaysinh R. Rathod And Ors. vs Ito on 27 October, 2006

49. Answer to the ascertainability of cost also clearly lies in Section 13 of the Regulation (Act No. 3 of 1971) which has been reproduced at para 14 while dealing learned DR's arguments. This section lays down clear parameters where Alwara right holders if do not prefer to get new occupancy rights formula of compensation has been prescribed. Existence of this machinery in the Land Regulations Rules establishes that cost of new rights being conferred was clearly ascertainable. Consequently, looking at the entirety of facts and circumstances, we hold that cost of land and rights attached thereof held by the assessees under new regulations as owners was clearly ascertainable, therefore, case of B.C. Srinivasa Shetty (supra) and other cases i.e.(a) Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT 156 ITR 509 (SC), (b) CIT v. Mandharsinhji P. Jadeja 281 ITR 19 (Guj), (c) CIT v. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji 162 ITR 93 (MP) and CIT v. H.H. Lokendra Singh 227 ITR 638 (MP), (d) CIT v. Pushpraj Singh 232 ITR 754 (MP), (e) CIT v. Markapakula Agama 165 ITR 386 (AP), (f) Baroda Cement & Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj) -are not applicable and of no avail to assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 79 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Uppala Venkat Rao on 8 November, 2001

6. Pursuant to the above, the learned CIT(A) by his impugned order dt. 31st March; 1997, disposed off the appeal and held that as far as 60 per cent share in the land is concerned the ownership rights have vested in the assessee without any payment of cost by virtue of A.P. (Telangana) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in his status as a protected tenant and no amount can be charged to tax as capital gains by following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Markapakula Agamma (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Joy Ice-Creams (Bangalore) (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 23 March, 1989

In the case of Markapakula Agamma (supra) the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that compensation received by a protected tenant on compulsory acquisition of land cannot be computed for capital gains since for acquiring the asset (protected tenancy) the tenant had not paid any amount to the landlord or anybody. Following the same we hold that the amount of Rs. 45 lakhs received by the assessee for surrender of the tenancy rights is not chargeable to capital gains.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Merchandisers (P.) Ltd. on 25 September, 1989

CIT [1985] 155 ITR 681 (Kar) ; B.C. Shah v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 23 (Bom) ; CIT v. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji [1986] 162 ITR 93 (MP) and CIT v. Markapakula Agamma [1987] 165 ITR 386 (AP), the decision of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Shiv Charan Singh's case [1984] 149 ITR 29 has been referred to. It cannot admit of any doubt that the consideration received by a tenant for parting with the tenancy right is not exigible to capital gains tax in cases where no cost of acquisition for the tenancy can be predicated.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 17 - K S Paripoornan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gulab Chand on 4 March, 1991

On this reasoning, even if the said receipt is a capital gain, it is not a capital gain chargeable under the provisions of Section 45 for the simple reason that there was no cost of acquisition for the tenancy right (vide CIT v. Markapakula Agamma [1987] 165 ITR 386 (AP). Accordingly, it must be held to be a receipt of a casual and nonrecurring nature within the meaning of Clause (3) of Section 10. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the said receipt was a capital gain and in further directing the Income-tax Officer to compute the tax treating it as a capital gain.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 27 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next