Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing A. Abdul Rahim, Travancore ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 July, 1974

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I vs Kartikey V. Sarabhai on 4 May, 1981

"I-9.16. Apart from the specific exemption under section 47(ii) in regard to distribution of assets on the dissolution of a firm, the Supreme Court has held that where a partner introduces capital assets belonging to him as his share of capital contribution in a firm, there is no sale-CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd. [1972] 83 ITR 211 (SC). The Kerala High Court in a Full Bench decision, A. Abdul Rahim, Travancore Confectionary Works v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 595, has applied the definition of 'transfer' under section 2(47) to the case where a partner introduced his own assets in a firm as his capital. The question in the case was whether this operation amounted to a sale or transfer of an asset on which development rebate was allowed, thereby entitling the loss of the development rebate. The court held that there was an extinguishment of the rights of full ownership on the property becoming the asset of the firm and that there was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47). It is of course, true that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to earlier was not cited before the Kerala High Court; but it may be stated that the Supreme Court held on the facts of that case that there was no sale. The court had no occasion to construe the provisions of section 2(47) as examined by the Kerala High Court."
Gujarat High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Jain on 7 March, 1988

24. As we had already indicated above, Shri Swamy, learned counsel for the assessee, strenuously urged that if it should be eventually held that the impugned transaction is not a transfer under general law, then it is not open to the Revenue to apply the provisions contained in section 2(47) of the Act. Although in the view that we have taken it is unnecessary to deal with that question, Shri Swamy urged that for the sake of completeness, we may deal with this aspect of the matter and indicate our views. We are afraid there is not much that is left to us in view of the Supreme Court categorically approving the conclusion reached by the Kerala Full Bench in A. Abdul Rahim v. CIT .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 31 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

P. Ramachandra Reddiar And P. Arjuna ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 November, 1987

67. Counsel for the assessees referred to a large number of decisions to show that, in tax matters, a firm is a legal entity. The decisions referred are State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate, [1966] 17 STC 326 ; AIR 1966 SC 1295, ITO v. C. V. George [1976] 105 ITR 144 (Ker) [FB], CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai [1977] 106 ITR 292 (SC), Abdul Rahim, Travancore Confectionery Works v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 595 (Ker) [FB] and Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC). These are authorities for the proposition that a firm can be taxed as a legal entity, but they are not authorities for the proposition that the firm is a separate entity in law distinct from the partners constituting it from time to time. The separate legal status given to the firm extend only for the purpose of assessment and they do not go any further. In other words, when partners constitute a firm, in general law, the firm does not get a corporate personality and it has no corporate existence in law. The firm name is only a convenient way of referring to the names of all the partners constituting the partnership at the relevant time.
Kerala High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 2 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs M.A.J. Vasanaik on 12 September, 1978

21. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has held in the case of A. Abdul Rahim v. CIT that on the conversion of an individual business into a partnership, a transfer of the assets of the individual to a firm attracting the provisions of a s. 34(3)(b) of the Act takes place. It is no doubt true that the Full Bench has relied upon s. 2(47) of the Act which defines the expression "transfer". S. 2(47) provided that "transfer" in relation to a capital assets includes the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law. It is argued that the definition of "transfer" found in s. 2(47) is introduced in the Act only for the purpose of s. 45 of the Act which deals with capital gains and it cannot be relied upon for interpreting the words "otherwise transferred" in s. 34(3)(b) of the Act. We are of opinion that in order to hold that on the individual business being converted into partnership business there is a transfer of the assets of individual to the partnership it is not necessary to rely on the definition in s. 2(47) at all because the said transaction amounts to a transfer in the eye of law even when the word "transfer" is understood in the ordinary senses and not in the wider sense in which it is defined in s. 2(47) of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax -I Aayakar ... vs M/S Carlton Hotel Pvt Ltd. Rana Pratap ... on 31 January, 2017

However, Court expressly appreciated the view taken by Kerala High Court in Abdul Rahim (A.), Travancore Confectionery Works Vs. CIT, [1977] 110 ITR 595 (Ker) [FB], and Karnataka High Court in CIT (Addl.) Vs. Vasanaik (M.A.J.), [1979] 116 ITR 110 (Kar.), to hold that there was a transfer of capital asset within the meaning of Section 45 of Act, 1961.
Allahabad High Court Cites 89 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs H.H. Maharani Sethu Parvathi Bayi (By ... on 26 September, 1997

5. ITA No. 37/Coch of 1982 was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal challenging the order passed by the first appellate authority. The Revenue also filed an appeal as ITA No. 416 Coch of 1982. These appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common order dated February 18, 1984. The Tribunal took the view that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had committed an error in deleting the entire levy of capital gains tax. Following the ratio of the decision of this court in A Abdul Rahim v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 595 [FB], the Tribunal took the view that tax can be levied only on the basis of the stated consideration of Rs. 250 per share and not on the basis of the market value as determined by the Income-tax Officer. The tribunal was of the view that the appeal by the assessee was really incompetent as the entire levy had been set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). But accepting the request made on behalf of the assessee, the Tribunal was inclined to treat the appeal filed by the assessee as cross-objection for the purpose of enabling the assessee to agitate the question as to whether transfer of the share to the firm can attract capital gains tax. Thus, the appeal filed by the Department was allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 6 - N Dhinakar - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Sureshchand Jain on 27 March, 1984

The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of A. Abdul Rahim, Travan-core Confectionery Works (supra) in favour of the revenue had no occasion to consider in its decision either the decision of Hind Construction Ltd.'s case (supra), since it was not cited before it or the argument that the definition of transfer of capital asset in Section 2(47) had no application, since such an argument was not raised before it. On the contrary, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court specifically observed in A. Abdul Rahim, Travancore Confectionery Works, case (supra) :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next