Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Hakim Saiyad Abdullah vs Saiyad Ahmad And Ors. on 10 June, 1929

Venkata Suryanarayana Raju And Others vs P.Rama Devi And Others on 29 January, 2018

In Nanak v. Ahmad Ali (8 supra), following the judgment in (Saiyad) Abdullah v. Ahmad (7 supra), the Full Bench of Lahore High Court held that in the absence of specification of shares in the sale deed, the two should be presumed to have purchased the house in equal shares and noted that paragraph 2 of Section 45 of T.P. Act provides that in the absence of evidence as to the interests in the fund to which the co-vendees would be respectively entitled or as to the shares of consideration which they respectively advanced, the co-vendees shall be presumed to be equally interested in the property.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - A V Sai - Full Document

Shivani Madan, New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle-05, New Delhi on 5 January, 2023

16. In the case at hand also there is sale deed and the co-ownership is 6 ITA No. 1642/Del/2020 evidenced therein but there is no specification of shares of the husband and wife in the sale deed. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Saiyad Abdulla's case (supra), it must be held that husband and wife purchased equal shares and therefore, the Revenue is justified in bringing to tax 50% of the income from house property in the hands of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Priya Mahajan vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Chd & Anr on 26 November, 2015

In the case of Saiyed Abdullah v. Ahmad AIR 1929 All. 817, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that 'in the absence of specification of the shares purchased by two persons in the sale deed, it must be held that both purchased equal shares.' In the instant case the plot was purchased by four persons and their shares were not specified in the sale deed. Even the housing loan had also been taken jointly by the same four persons, therefore, in my considered opinion, the authorities below were justified in holding that since the individual shares were not specified in the sale deed, the logical conclusion is that everyone had equal share in the property. It is also relevant to state here that the assessee has claimed that she has invested for purchase/construction of the house property, but no evidence in support of this stand is available on records. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I fully agree with the observations of the CIT(A) that the allowable interest to the assessee will be 25% of the entire interest and the Assessing Officer was justified in his action."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Gopalsamy, Chennai vs Cit(A)-18, Chennai, Chennai on 31 July, 2024

The appellant before ld.CIT(A) also filed details of payment by banks towards the property. We have seen that payments were made through proper banking channel, furnished sanction letter and terms of payment etc. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that appellant and his wife are joint owners and their share in the property is only 50% of the loan and investment. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Saiyad Abdulla v. Ahmad AIR 1929 All 817, has held that in the absence of specification of the shares purchased by two persons in the sale deed, it must be held that both purchased equal shares. We have already accepted the tailoring business income of the assessee in previous paragraphs. We also observe that AO has 22 not questioned the wife of appellant to verify the veracity of the explanation of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Acit vs Shri C.K. Malik (I.G.) on 26 September, 2002

On the other hand, we find that the DCIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of proviso to Section 45. Proviso to Section 45 would be applicable, if no evidence is available. Therefore, the First Appellate Authority acted wrongly in placing reliance of Section 45 and in granting relief to the assessee. We have also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Saiyad Abdullah (supra), which was relied upon by the assessee as well as the First Appellate Authority in passing the impugned order. In this authority, it is held:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Alka Rajesh Vanigota,Mumbai vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-52, ... on 24 February, 2025

4. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, relied upon the decision rendered by Delhi bench of Tribunal in the case of Smt Shivani Madan vs. ACIT (2023)(147 taxmann.com 423)(Delhi) and the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of (Saiyad) Abdullah vs. Ahmad and Others (AIR 1929 ALL 817) and contended that the addition could be made, even if the assessee did not contribute any money for purchase of property.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1