Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. K. Sarala Devi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 February, 1996

Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur on 12 April, 2019

24. The ld. CIT-DR has further submitted that in the case of Smt. Sarala Devi K. Vs CIT [1996] 88 TAXMAN 18 (KER.), it has been held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under section 54E, since the deposit was made only in May 1978 and February 1979 whereas the sale took place on 17-3-1977. The deposit was not admittedly made within six months. He has further submitted that as per provisions of section 54B of the Act, the land sold as well as purchased must be used for agriculture purposes. However, the Ld. AR has filed a copy of "Jamabandi' in the name of the seller Smt. Rupinder Kaur and that too for the year 2006-07 and not for the relevant periods.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 61 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jyotindra H. Shodhan vs Income Tax Officer on 3 July, 2003

9. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the Department has not accepted the decision of Tribunal in the case of Gokul J. Shodhan and appeal has been filed before the High Court. The learned Departmental Representative has also submitted that the date of last instalment received as per AO, p. 4 of AO's order is 21st Sept., 1985, and investment was made after the stipulated period on 20th Feb., 1987. In respect of decisions cited by the learned authorised representative, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that these decisions are not applicable for the case under consideration as facts are different; these cases are related to issue of compulsory acquisition. He further submitted that in the case under consideration, there is no compulsory acquisition. It is a case of sale through agreement. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the language of section is very clear that the assessee who wants to avail the benefit of Section 54E, should deposit sale consideration within stipulated period of 6 months from date of transfer. The learned Departmental Representative referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. K. Sarala Devi v. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 211 (Ker) in support of his contentions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

R. M. Arunachalam Etc. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 9 March, 1997

The learned counsel has also invoked the principle of diversion governing computation of income chargeable to tax for the purpose of excluding the amount payable as estate duty and has relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Smt. Sarala Devi vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 211 (Ker) wherein this principle has been applied in the matter of computation of capital gains.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 13 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

R. M. Arunachalam vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,Madras on 9 July, 1997

The Learned counsel has also invoked the principle of diversion governing computation of income chargeable to tax for the purpose of excluding the amount payable as estate duty and has relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Smt. Sarala Devi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1996) 222 ITR 211 wherein this principle has been applied in the matter of computation of Capital Gains.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 43 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

M/S. Beaver Automotive Private Limtied ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 30 January, 2025

In the said judgment, the third party claimed title over the property which was compromised by the said assessee by paying a compensation and therefore the Hon'ble Madras High Court had held that the said compensation cannot be construed to be an amount paid for the cost of depreciation or cost of improvement. In the present case on hand, Page 7 of 9 ITA No. 1433/Bang/2024 the facts are entirely different. In this case, the compensation was not paid to any third parties but only to the genuine agreement holders and therefore the said judgment relied on by the Ld.CIT(A) to deny the cost of improvement is not correct.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1