Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (3.96 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhurangya Coal Co. on 23 September, 1958

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ganga Properties Ltd. on 17 June, 1969

In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhurangya Coal Co., the facts briefly were that on March 16, 1946, the coal company, which was the owner of a colliery, entered into an agreement with the promoters of another company to sell the colliery which included both movable and immovable properties for Rs. 6,10,000. The schedule to the deed of agreement set out the details of the properties in two parts : the first part Included immovable property whose value was fixed at Rs. 2,00,600 and the second part consisted of movables valued at Rs. 4,09,400. The purchaser--company was incorporated on March 18, 1946, and its directors adopted the agreement by a resolution, On March 30, 1949, all the properties movable and immovable were put into the possession of the purchaser-company. On May 17, 1946, a sale deed was, executed and registered in respect of the immovable properties mentioned in the first part of the schedule to the agreement. The sale deed recited the agreement of March 16, 1946, and referred to the two classes of properties agreed to be sold thereunder. The actual conveyance under the deed was only of the immovable properties specified in the first part of the schedule and the price thereof was stated to be Rs. 2,00,600. The Appellate Tribunal held that, so far as the movable properties were concerned, title passed when they were delivered to the company on March 30, 1946, and capital gains tax was not payable in regard to these properties under Section 12B (this section applied only to transfers effected after March 31, 1946) but the coal company was liable to pay capital gains tax for the immovable properties covered by the sale deed dated May 17, 1946. The Supreme Court has held, inter alia, that the title to immovable properties covered by the sale deed passed to the transferee on the date it was executed, namely, May 17, and the title to the movable properties passed to the company on the date they were handed over, namely, March 30, and not on the date of the agreement, and, therefore, the firm was liable for tax only in respect of profits made with reference to the immovable properties covered by the sale deed.
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 103 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be ... vs Dayalbhai Somabhai Ravjibhai Thro Pah ... on 2 August, 2011

"14. Even if the agreement was accepted by the company in 1949 the question still remains whether any sale or transfer of assets took place before April 1948. Sale or transfer of an asset could take place as it did in respect of the site even before the agreement was accepted The assets comprised of two items of immovable property viz. plant and machinery valued at Rs. 15,989 and site and buildings valued at Rs. 1,26,470. It is clear that title to these assets could not pass to the company till the conveyance was executed and registered.(See Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bhurangya Coal Co. 1958-34 ITR 802(AIR 1959 SC 254) No such conveyance was executed before April 1,1948. It is only on November 22,1948 that a sale deed was executed and registered in respect of the site. Therefore, it is clear that the title to these assets did not pass to the company till after April 1,1948 and consequently no sale took place of these assets before April 1,1948.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kedarnath Poddar And Co. on 12 January, 1993

" Even though the property was treated as an asset of the firm, Sri Kedar Nath Poddar was also the owner thereof. All the partners of the firm jointly owned all the assets of the firm. When a dissolution takes place or when a partner retires, then the account is made up to ascertain the share of each partner in the then existing assets of the firm and each partner gets back what he owned jointly with the other partners. The Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner have proceeded on the footing that the entries made in the books of the firm amounted to a transfer or relinquishment of the rights over the property under consideration which, we think, is not correct. It is well-settled, as has been pointed out in the case of CIT v. Bhurangya Coal Co. , that rights in immovable property are neither created nor extinguished merely by adjustment entries in the account books. The law requires certain formalities before the title to an immovable property can pass from one person to another. Until such formalities are completed, there can be no transfer or extinguishment or relinquishment of the rights in immovable properties. Thus, in the instant case, we find that, in the eye of law, Sri Kedar Nath Poddar was all along the owner and there was no legal transfer of the property in question when he allowed the same to be treated as the asset of the firm. Nor was there any legal transfer when he took away the property out of the assets of the firm. Hence, we are of the opinion that the facts of the instant case did not amount to a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act, and, therefore, it did not attract 'capital gains' tax under Section 45 of the Act."
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bajaj Hindustan Limited And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 4 April, 1997

In Commr. of Income-tax v. Bhurangya Coal Co., AIR 1959 SC 254, it was held that so far as the immovables are concerned, the title to them pass to the transferee only when the sale-deed was executed and not when the agreement was concluded. The transaction, therefore, fell directly within the operation of Section 12-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922. So far as the movable properties were concerned, the title to them pass when they were delivered to the transferee and that was on the date the agreement was concluded and their sale fell outside the section. Therefore, on the terms of the agreement and the sale-deed, the position was that while the assessee would be liable for tax in respect of properties made with reference to immovables covered by the sale-deed, it would not be liable to tax in respect of the profits attributable to the sale of movables of which delivery was given to them on the date of the agreement. On a consideration of the two documents, it was held by the Supreme Court that what was intended to be sold and what was actually sold under the sale-deed were only properties mentioned in part 1 of the Schedule as immovable properties and not of the items included in part 2 and the intention was to sell the fixtures of movables. In this view the question whether the movables have been validly sold did not really arise for determination because if the sale was invalid there was no sale so far as they were concerned and Section 12-B would be inapplicable. Therefore, it was held that it was only the profits in respect of the sale of the properties described in part 1 that were liable to tax under Section 12B.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - B Prasad - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Mercury General Corporation P. Ltd. on 25 August, 1981

"In our considered opinion, it could not be held on the facts of the present case that any transfer of any part of the property had taken place in favor of the vendees in the present years. The mere execution of agreements of sales or even receipt of sale consideration could not operate as completed sales in the absence of registered sale deeds. The Supreme Court authorities in the cases reported as CIT v. Bhurangya Coal Co. [1958] 34 ITR 802.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 17 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Chetak Cinema vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 July, 1977

4. Mr. S. K. Mal Lodha, appearing on behalf of the revenue, referred to certain cases of some other High Courts, which have a direct bearing on the question raised by the assessee, but he could not point out any judgment of the Supreme Court, except the two judgments referred to in the order of the Tribunal which according to him may resolve the controversy finally. We may state that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Alapati Venkata-ramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185 and CIT v. Bhurangya Coal Co. [1958] 34 ITR 802 pertain to the question of accruing of the capital gains and in this connection the Supreme Court has said that the gains accrue only when the title of the property passes on to the purchaser by a validly registered document. We need not of course express our opinion about the principle decided by the Supreme Court in these two cases at this stage, but it is obvious that the question of law decided by the Supreme Court in these two cases has no direct bearing on the question arising out of the interpretation of Section 32 of the I.T. Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 5 March, 1991

4.3 No body has examined about this facet of the case i.e. whether there was any transfer of land or not in favour of either of the parties. Admittedly the so called 'licence' fixes the annual premium and it is more than Rs. 100 and accordingly the said 'licence' can be said to operate, to create, to declare and assign the right in the immovable property qua the transferee and limit and extinguish the rights in the immovable property as to its interest in the said immovable property, qua the transferor, though be in the present or in the future and since the said 'licence', as what it recites, it does fall within the mischief of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act (Central Act No. XVI of 1908), none of the learned lower authorities have examined the said facet of the case also. In fact the Revenue in its ITA No. 4155/ Del/86 has taken as specific ground No. 2, the laterpart of which reads "... especially when ownership conveyance deed is executed & registered & not otherwise". The grievance of the Revenue in the said ground is that since there has been no execution of a conveyance deed and no registration of the same, the learned CIT (Appeals) was not correct in law and on facts for holding that the right or asset was acquired by the assessee only on 22-3-1977. This facet of the case also needs to be gone into i.e., as and when the licence was executed and registered as a "conveyance deed", whereby the rights in the immovable property were to be created/declared/ assigned in favour of any one, the assessee or the said Bharat Hotels Ltd. and limiting and extinguishing the rights of the transferor i.e. the NDMC or the assessee respectively. Transfer for the purposes of capital gain and that of a capital asset, in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act means effective conveyance of the capital asset to the transferee and it has to be read in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above viz., CIT v. Bhurangya Coal Co. [1958] 34 ITR 802 at pages 804 and 805, Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185 at page 192 and Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT [1986] 162 ITR 888 since in the case of an immovable property or any interest thereof the value exceeding Rs. 100, the title to the property on the interest thereof cannot pass to the transferee till a conveyance is executed and registered. Mere delivery of possession of immovable property cannot by itself be treated as equivalent to conveyance of the immovable property. The date of accrual of capital gain has to be taken, the date when the transfer takes place and the entries in the account books are irrelevant for the purposes of determining such dates.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 58 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Atma Ram Trust vs Income-Tax Officer on 26 February, 1993

In the case of Bhurangya Coal Co. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the title to a movable property passes to the company on the day they were handed over possession in pursuance of agreement unlike in the case of immovable property where the title to immovable property passes to the transferee only on the date of execution of sale deed and registration of sale deed in respect of property mentioned in it. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alapatl Venkataramiah (supra). Therefore, the transfer of ownership of the vehicle takes place when the properly is transferred to the purchaser in consideration and the purchaser is put into possession of the same. The registration of vehicle in the name of the purchaser with the transport authority is not decisive of the date on which the ownership vests in the purchaser. In most of the cases of sale and purchase of vehicles including motor cars, the transfer of ownership takes place just at the moment of the delivery of possession. The transfer of ownership of vehicle is not a matter governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Motor vehicle is a movable property. The transfer of ownership is governed by the sale of Goods Act. Transfer takes effect from the date of sale. As between the transferor and the transferee, the sale is complete even before the transfer is effected in the registration certificate. The failure to report the same to the registering authority may entail levy of penalty prescribed under Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act or Section 112 of the Act. Beyond that, it does not affect the passing of title.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Atam Prakash And Sons (Huf) vs Income-Tax Officer on 22 September, 1987

16. Reliance was placed from both sides on Vania Silk Mills (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra). In that case a fire had damaged the assessee's machinery to the extent that it could not any longer be put to use as such. The machinery was insured and no settlement of the insurance claim the assessee received a certain sum on account of the destruction of its machinery which was taken over by the insurance company. It was held that on the settlement of the insurance claim in the aforesaid manner, the assessee's rights in the machinery got extinguished and there was thus a transfer of the machinery within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act by extinguishment of rights therein. The Hon'ble High Court observed as below :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 23 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next