Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (No. 1) on 16 September, 1996

P.Sulochana, Coimbatore vs Acit Ncc - 1, Coimbatore on 23 February, 2022

paragraphs shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, on similar reasons, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO and direct the AO to re-consider the issue in light of various arguments advanced by the assessee and also in light of decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt.Thressiamma Abraham (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devendra Kumar Shroff, Kolkata vs Ito, Wd-7(2), Kolkata, Kolkata on 26 February, 2020

ITO (1994) 210 ITR 700 and K. V. Idiculla Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 386 the Hon'ble Kerala High Court found that the facts in those cases were entirely different as those cases related to the question of deduction from the full value of consideration, the situation in the case of Smt. ThressiammaAbraham(supra) was diversion of amounts at source by overriding the title.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mrs. Thressiamma Abraham (No. 2) on 19 December, 1996

9. We find considerable merit in the contention taken by the assessee that in the light of the decision of this court in I. T. R. No. 87 of 1992, CIT v. Thressiamma Abraham (No. 1) [1997] 227 ITR 802, there is not much scope for the Revenue to contend that the relevant document is not a deed of mortage. We have also independently considered the different terms of the document which is produced as annexure "D". We find that going by the terms of the document, it is clear that there is a transfer of interest in specific immovable property belonging to the assessee to the Kerala Finance Corporation for the purpose of securing payment of money advanced by it to the company by way of loan. The relevant portions of the document are quoted in the common order of the Tribunal. The right to sell mortgaged properties had been given to the Corporation even without any further consent from the mortgagor company or co-mortgagors, in case of default by the mortgagor company in making repayment as per the terms of the agreement. The decision relied on by learned counsel for the Revenue has no application in this case. That was a case where a registered document called deed of agreement was executed by a lady under which she provided that she would pay Rs. 20 per month to her daughter-in-law and that the said maintenance allowance should continue to be paid to her descendants from generation to generation. She further provided that maintenance allowance should be a charge on certain property and the said share shall remain hypothecated in lieu of the payment of the said maintenance allowance. She further provided that after her death, only that portion of the property which would devolve upon her son would remain charged and hypothecated. The question arose whether the document is a deed of mortgage. The Allahabad High Court held that when the intention of the parties is to create a liability in perpetuity not capable of being redeemed absolutely at any time, the transaction cannot be a mortgage. But, it will create only a charge on the property. As far as the present case is concerned, it is nobody's case that a liability is created in perpetuity not capable of redemption. Merely because the time for repayment is spread over a period of 8 1/2 years, it cannot be contended that the liability is created for perpetuity. As a matter of fact also in this case, the property of the assessee was brought to sale at the instance of the mortgagee-Kerala Financial Corporation. We, therefore, reject the contention taken by the Revenue that the status of the assessee is not that of a mortgagor in the light of the terms of the document dated September 22, 1969. If that be so, the Tribunal was justified in holding that for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1981-82, the only right the assessee had in the property mortgaged to the Kerala Financial Corporation was the right of equity of redemption. Even though an attempt was made to contend that the assessee had a right of reimbursement of the money paid to the Kerala Financial Corporation by sale of her property from other mortgagors in the absence of any such specific provision in the document and also in view of the fact that the assessee was made personally liable to the Corporation for the debts of the company as a guarantor, this contention is only to be rejected.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G Sivarajan - Full Document

Wealth-Tax Officer,, vs Shri Dinkar Chendu Nehete,, Jalgaon on 30 June, 2017

5. On the other hand Smt. Deepa Khare appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the documents on record clearly show that the assessee has not claimed deduction u/s. 2(m) of the Act. The issue 5 WTA Nos. 23 to 27 & 33 to 37/PUN/2016 relating to claim of deduction u/s. 2(m) was not even raised before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals). In support of her contentions the ld. Counsel for the assessee draws our attention to the return of net wealth along with computation filed by the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 at pages 84 to 86 of the paper book. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further referred to the written submissions filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) at pages 9 to 39 of the paper book. The ld. Counsel submitted that even in the grounds of appeal raised before the First Appellate Authority there is no mention regarding claim of deduction u/s. 2(m) of the Act. The assessee had filed appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) against the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of approved valuer report. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) while adjudicating the matter suo moto granted the benefit of deduction u/s. 2(m) to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Biyani Group (supra) and the decision of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thressiamma Abraham (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ajaybhai Ishwarlal Gogia,, ... vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) (5), ... on 18 April, 2022

7.2 However, we equally note that in several cases, including the one cited by the assessee, it has been held that in case of transfer of mortgaged property, if the consideration does not flow to the assessee, then the same would not amount to transfer of asset and no capital gains tax would accrue in the hands of the assessee. the case of CIT v. Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (No. 1) [1997] 227 ITR 802 (KER.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Rajkot Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Tmt.D.Zeenath vs The Income Tax Officer on 3 April, 2019

38. In view of the above reasonings, we hold that in the present case, there was no diversion of sale proceeds by virtue of overriding title, but on the contrary, there was only a mere application by the owners themselves of the profits realized on the sale of land towards the discharge of loan obligations of same firm. We also hold that the assessee cannot claim any part of such application as cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gains as per the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. We hold that the ratio laid down in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.S.M.R. Jagadishchandran (Decd.) (cited supra) and of the Madras High Court in N.Vajrapani Naidu (cited supra) and in Sri Kanniah Photo Studio (cited supra) which followed the ratio in the judgment of R.M.Arunachalam (cited above) laid down the correct position of law.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Glad Investments (P.) Ltd. on 9 June, 2006

As to the reliance placed by the revenue on the judgments of the Kerala High Court in the cases of Ambat Echukiilty Menon (supra), Salay Mohamad Ibrahim Sail (supra) and K.V. Idiculla (supra) the Hon'ble Kerala High Court found that the facts in those cases were entirely different as those cases related to the question of deduction from the full value of consideration, the situation in the case of Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (supra) was diversion of amounts at source by overridding title.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 60 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S.R.V. Press And Publications (P.) Ltd. on 30 September, 1999

Learned counsel for the asses-see, on the other hand, referred to the decision of this court in CIT v. Thressiamma Abraham (Smt.) (No. 1) [1997] 227 ITR 802 and that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Attili Narayana Rao [1998] 233 ITR 10 to contend that matter is not closed against the assessee as urged. It is fairly conceded by him that Section 48 of the Act has no application to the facts in the case and, therefore, to that extent, the Tribunal was not justified in its view. But an alternative argument was advanced by the assessee before the Tribunal to the effect that the Corporation had overriding title over the property and the amount paid to it is clearly relatable to such title. That being the position, the amount was to be excluded.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 10 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next