Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (3.29 seconds)
Documents citing B.B. Sarkar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 May, 1981

Rustom Homi Vakil, Mumbai vs Assessee on 30 March, 2016

In the instant case, the assessee has purchased the new residential house at Pune in July 2008 in dilapidated condition and immediately there-after undertaken extensive civil, plumbing , electrical & painting works to make it habitable , which tantamount to construction within the meaning of Section 54 of the Act , hence , the assessee cannot be denied the benefit u/s. 54 of the Act merely on the ground that the assessee has purchased the new residential house and there-fore benefit as available to construction of the new residential house cannot be extended to the assessee simultaneously . Perusal of Section 54 of the Act will reveal that no such restrictions are placed in the provisions of Section 54 of the Act that purchase of new residential house is mutually exclusive to the construction of new residential house , provided other conditions as stipulated u/s. 54 of the Act are fulfilled. Rather, in the instant case starting from the purchase of new residential house at Pune in July 2008 in dilapidated condition by the assessee was immediately 15 ITA 4450/Mum/2014 followed by extensive civil, plumbing , electrical and painting works undertaken by the assessee which started immediately after purchase of the house in July 2008 and continued till January 2009 which tantamount to construction of the said residential house by spending Rs.14.26 lacs , to make the said new residential house habitable with amenities fit for living of the assessee for residential purposes . Section 54 of the Act does not stipulate any condition that if the new residential house is purchased by the tax-payer, then benefit associated with construction of the said new residential house cannot be extended simultaneously rather both purchase and construction of the same new residential house can co-exist , provided other conditions as stipulated u/s. 54 of the Act are complied with. For example, the tax-payer can purchase an residential house with one floor and later construct two more floor's on the same residential house and in this situation benefit u/s 54 of the Act cannot be denied to the tax-payer merely on the ground that the tax-payer has purchased the residential house and hence now benefits for construction of the same residential house property are ,therefore, denied . Our above view is fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of B.B.Sarkar v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 150(Cal.HC) .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suman Agarwal , vs Department Of Income Tax

The ld. CIT(A) thus allowed the entire claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54 in respect of investment made in Flats No. 701 & 702 treating the same as a single dwelling unit relying on the decision of Special Bench of ITAT at Mumbai in the case of ITO vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri (107 ITD 327) [SB] and also that of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of B.B. Sarkar vs. CIT (132 ITR 159).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pattan Masthan Khan vs Gift-Tax Officer on 25 February, 1982

The basic qualification of the gift-tax payable exceeding Rs. 1,000 in respect of each instrument of gift of property cannot be construed, unless violence is done to the language in a manner not intended by the Legislature or not known to grammar, that it would mean all instruments of gift of property. If 'A', taking an illustration, makes ten gifts in respect of each of which the gift-tax payable exceeded Rs. 1,000, then the stamp duty payable in respect of all those gifts would qualify for rebate. But, if gift-tax payable in respect of some of them happened to be below Rs. 1,000, on the plain language of Section 18A, those gifts would become disentitled for the rebate. He then submitted that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) or that of the Calcutta High Court in B.B. Sarkar (supra), would apply only to a case where there is a manifest absurdity. Hence, he pointed out that we are reading an absurdity where none existed, only to suit a particular interpretation.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.G. Vyas vs Seventh Income-Tax Officer on 6 January, 1986

7. The next decision we would like to refer is to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in B.B. Sarkar's case (supra). In this case their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court had held that the expression used in a statute should ordinarily be Understood in the sense in which it is best harmonious with the object of the statute and which effectuates the object of the Legislature and that it is, therefore, necessary to read Section 54 in the context of the subject-matter and its setting in the scheme of capital gains and the object of the exemption and to ascertain its true import. Their Lordships held that the main purpose of Section 54 is to give relief in respect of profit on the sale of a residential house, that if the assessee is entitled to relief on the fulfilment of either of the two conditions, that is to say, either purchasing a house property within one year or constructing the house within two years, it would be improper to hold that on fulfilment of both the conditions he would be disentitled to that relief, that it is the fulfilment of two alternative conditions that is contemplated by Section 54 and that where both the conditions are fulfilled within the time stipulated, the assessee will be entitled to the relief Under the section. In the said case, the department denied the relief to the assessee under Section 54 in respect of the amounts spent by him in constructing an additional floor on the dwelling house which he had purchased after dis posing of his old residential house at No. 1 Park Lane, Calcutta. This decision also supports the contention of the appellant's counsel.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Asian Paints (India) Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 18 April, 1990

According to Shri Agarwal, when the period is considered in the form of years, the date of commencement, which happens to be first day of the year, is included in the computation of the period of years. He also argued that a literal construction that leads to an absurdity should be avoided. It was absurd to suggest, according to Shri Agarwal, that the year commenced from 2nd April and ended on 1st April. He relied on the decisions of Calcutta High Court in B.B. Sarkar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 150.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harsutrai J. Raval vs Cit on 12 February, 2002

(b) A decision of the Calcutta High Court in B.B. Sarkar v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 150 (Cal), was referred to for the proposition that the main purpose of section 54 is to give relief in respect of profit on the sale of a residential house and if an assessee was entitled to such relief on the fulfilment of either of the two conditions, that is to say, either purchase a house property within one year or construct the house within two years, it would be improper to hold that on fulfilment of both conditions, he will not be disentitled to that relief. In that case, the assessee had after selling his dwelling house on 26-7-1974 purchased a house property on 13-6-1976 and made a further investment in it before 27-3-1976 by constructing an additional floor thereon. It was held that where both the conditions were fulfilled within the time stipulated, the assessee would be entitled to the relief.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harsutrai J. Raval vs Cit on 12 February, 2002

(b) A decision of the Calcutta High Court in B. B. Sarkar v. CIT (1981) 132 ITR 150 (Cal), was referred to for the proposition that the main purpose of section 54 is to give relief in respect of profit on the sale of a residential house and if an assessee was entitled to such relief on the fulfilment of either of the two conditions, that is to say, either purchase a house property within one year or construct the house within two years, it would be improper to hold that on fulfilment of both conditions, he will not be disentitled to that relief. In that case the assessee had after selling his dwelling house on 26-7-1974, purchased a house property on 13-6-1976, and made a further investment in it before 27-3-1976, by constructing an additional floor thereon. It was held that where both the conditions were fulfilled within the time stipulated, the assessee would be entitled to the relief.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next