Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing M. Viswanathan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 March, 1978

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs D. Rani on 9 August, 1995

In M. Viswanathan v. CIT , the question of applicability of section 54 was referred to by the Madras High Court. The assessee therein resided for one year and five months, before he sold the house property. On the ground that the use was for a period less than two years, it was contended by the Revenue that the provisions of section 54 of the Act would not be attracted. The learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench observed that the words "two years immediately preceding the date of sale" and "was being used" were important and that if the words "in the two years immediately preceding" were stood by themselves, some ambiguity would have arisen. But those words are coupled with the words "was being used" which in English language extended to the date of transfer as the expression in the English language was described as past continuance, a continuity which extended up to the termination date which is clearly stated as the date of transfer. For the reasons, we have already indicated above, with great respect, we are unable to accept the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Mrs. Olga T. Desouza vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 February, 1997

While arriving at the above conclusion, this court referred with approval the decision of the Madras High Court in M. Viswanathan v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 244 which was relied upon by the Tribunal and the other decisions of the Madras High Court where it has been held that for obtaining the benefit of section 54 of the Act, the assessee must have been in occupation for a continuous period of two years before the transfer.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - P Upasani - Full Document

Pritam H. Dadlani vs Income-Tax Officer on 16 January, 1989

It may also be stated that the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in Viswanathan's case (supra) was very much taken note of by the Tribunal but following a case decided by the High Court of Delhi in S. Harnam Singh Suri's case (supra) and holding that where a taxing provision is ambiguous or capable of more meaning than one, the interpretation which is beneficial to the subject must be adopted, the Delhi view was preferred.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R. Krishnamurthy vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 February, 1993

In M. Viswanathan's case [1979] 117 ITR 244 (Mad), the assessee had purchased a residential building which was in the possession of a tenant. The assessee could recover possession on January 5, 1964. He resides in that building from 16, 1964, to June 16, 1965. On these facts, the question which was referred to the Madras High Court under section 256(1) of the Act was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the requirement of the provisions of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had not been satisfied and, consequently, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under the aforesaid provision for the assessment year 1966-67. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that there should be user of the house as a residential house for the entire period of two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place if that section is to be attracted. The assessee's contention was that the wording of the section did not warrant the insistence on continuous user as residential house for the entire period to two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. The Madras High Court held that (at Page 245) :
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indulal C. Kamdar on 1 December, 1993

In this judgment, the Madras High Court followed the view taken by the said High Court in the earlier case of M. Viswanathan v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 244. At page 306, Sethuraman J., speaking for the Bench, observed that if the words "in the two years immediately preceding" had stood by themselves some ambiguity would have arisen, because it is possible to say that when we speak of "in the two years", it can be any time during the period of two years. At the same page, the learned judge made observations to the effect that the abovereferred expression was liable to be construed in conjunction with the expression was being used" which expression in the English language indicated "past continuous user" immediately prior to the date of transfer. Thus, in the abovereferred decisions, the Madras High Court took the view that the assessee must have continuously used the residential building or the flat for the entire period of two years immediately prior to the date of transfer in order to be entitled to claim exemption from levy of capital gains tax in terms of section 54.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs V.R. Mala on 14 October, 1981

6. Thus, if the section is properly construed then the stay of the assessee being for a period of less than two years, the conditions of s. 54 would not stand satisfied. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that other expressions have been used in other provisions. We are concerned with s. 54 and when the language is so clear, we do not see any need to look into any other provision as an aid for construction. The learned counsel for the assessee went to the extent of asking for reconsideration of the earlier decision referred to above. As rightly pointed out by the learned judges, if we may say so with respect, the construction of the provision is clear and, therefore, we do not consider that there is any scope or need for a reconsideration of the construction placed on the provision in the said decision.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs R. Mala. on 14 October, 1981

Thus, if the section is properly construed then the stay of the assessee being for a period of less than two years, the conditions of s. 54 would not stand satisfied. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that other expressions have been used in other provisions. We are concerned with s. 54 and when the language is so clear, we do not see any need to look into any other provision as an aid for construction. The learned counsel for the assessee went to the extent of asking for reconsideration of the earlier decision referred to above. As rightly pointed out by the learned judges, if we may say so with respect, the construction of the provision is clear and, therefore, we do not consider that there is any scope or need for a reconsideration of the construction placed on the provision in the said decision.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next