Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kanubhai R. Shah (Huf) on 21 January, 1993

Shri Vijaysinh R. Rathod And Ors. vs Ito on 27 October, 2006

43. This was a case where certain shares acquired by Karta of HUF were thrown into hotchpot of HUF and on sale thereof, assessee claimed deduction for cost of acquisition thereof at market value of previous owner as cost of acquisition on the date they were thrown into HUF hotchpot. At that time, the provision for substituted cost of acquisition was not there under Section 49 for the property thrown into HUF hotchpot. This decision was followed by Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kanubhai R. Shah (HUF) 201 ITR 1050 (Bom), again a case referred by AO in his order, and it was noticed that substituted cost under Section 49(1) was provided for the first time by inserting clause-(iv) w.e.f. 1-4-1976 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975. The Court took value of cost of acquisition at 'Nil' for computing capital gain. A contention with regard to Section 55(3) was raised before the High Court which held that section has no application. In this case, assessee received the assets on partial partition from bigger HUF and the cost of acquisition in the hands of smaller HUF was taken at 'Nil'. Assessee raised a contention for taking market value to be substituted as cost of acquisition of the previous owner, but the court rejected the contentions by observing as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 79 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Harbhagwan on 7 January, 1998

14. We are, with respect, unable to agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Kanubhai R. Shah's case (supra). In that case, the effect of the Expln. below s. 49(1) and the question of finding the cost in the hands of the last previous owner, were not considered. As stated earlier, the Expln. below s. 49(1) would be attracted where the last previous owner acquired the property by any of the modes other than those referred to in cls. (i), (ii) and (iii) of s. 49(1) of the Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - N K Agarwal - Full Document

Vilas B. Shah, Mumbai vs Assessee on 28 November, 2008

"9. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, it is clear that where number of transactions of sale and purchase 11 ITA No. 7511/MUM/2011 of shares takes place, the most important test is the volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions of purchase and sale of the shares. However, where there is repetition and continuity, coupled with magnitude of the transaction, bearing reasonable proportion to the strength of holding, then an inference can be drawn that activity is in the nature of business. Learned counsel for the revenue from the records could not demonstrate that there were large number of transactions which had frequency, volume, continuity and regularity and fell within the tests laid down by the Division Bench of this Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1