Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.06 seconds)Documents citing
Ukhara Estate Zamindaries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 19 September, 1979
Eklingji Trust vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 July, 1985
17. The question pertaining to compensation for compulsory acquisition arose in Ukhara Estate Zamindaries P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 549 (SC). Tulzapurkar J., speaking for the court, observed as under (at pp. 558 & 559):
Nawn Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 January, 1981
Reliance was also placed in aid of his submissions referred to hereinbefore on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ukhara Estate Zamindaries P. Ltd. v. CIT . Reliance was placed on the observations of the court at page 558 but having regard to the controversy involved, vis., whether the salami premium and compensation for compulsory acquisition were capital receipts or not, in the context of the facts of this case, in our opinion, the said decision and the said observation cannot also be of help to us in resolving the disputes that have arisen in the instant case.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Presidency Co-Operative Housing ... on 22 February, 1993
11. The other cases which have been cited in this connection are CIT vs. Port Canning & Land Improvement Co. Ltd. reported in (1966) 62 ITR 87 (Bom), Ukhara Estate Zamindaries P. Ltd. vs. CIT , CIT vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. and Board of Agrl.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M.K.S. Ranjitsinhji on 10 February, 1998
The High Court relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sivaram Prasad Bahadur's case (supra), P. H. Divecha's case (supra) and Ukhara Estate Zamindari (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 549 (SC) : TC 38R.1099, found that the compensation paid was for resumption of jagir lands i.e. for taking away the estate and so it was a capital receipt.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Lakshminarayana Mining Co. on 9 December, 1985
19. The ratio decidendi in each of the cases, many of them no doubt dealing with case of multi-trading agencies, is of general application. The circumstance that they were not enunciated with reference to termination of leases does not detract from the weight of authority of the enunciation at all. We are of the view that the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court are general legal principles laying down general tests relevant for determining whether a receipt is a capital or a revenue receipt. The ruling of the Supreme Court in Ukhara Estate Zamindaries P. Limited v. CIT, strongly relied on by Sri Sarangan, which is essentially a decision on the facts of that case, does not lay down any new principle and does not support the broad proposition urged by him. In no case brought to out notice, the board proposition urged by Sri Sarangan has found favour either with the Supreme Court or any other High Court in the country. The distinction made by Sri Sarangan is without a difference and is devoid of merit. We have no hesitation in rejecting the same.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Administrator Of The Estate Of on 24 April, 2012
"Land and buildings.- Where an individual inherits or
otherwise acquires land and deals with it as an owner, he
may be regarded as holding it as an investment rather
than as something with which to trade(Dolores v. Comr
of Taxation 82 ITR 272 (PC); CIT v Raunaq Singh 85
ITR 220; CIT v Thiagarajan 129 ITR 115; CIT v.
Saraswati 137 ITR 656; IR v Reinhold 34 TC 389;
Williams v Davies 26 TC 371, 15 ITR Suppl 50); and the
same principle applies to a company incorporated for the
purpose of management of a family estate (Ukhara v CIT
120 ITR 549 (SC).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Presidency Co-Operative Housing ... on 22 February, 1993
11. The other cases which have been cited in this connection are CIT vs. Port Canning & Land Improvement Co. Ltd. reported in (1966) 62 ITR 87 (Bom), Ukhara Estate Zamindaries P. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (1979) 120 ITR 549 (SC), CIT vs. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. reported in (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC) and Board of Agrl.
B. D. Panda vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 23 March, 1991
The above shows that the Tribunal had treated the sum of Rs. 3,50,000 as a capital receipt being of the view that what was being sold by the assessee was a project of which he was the owner - the project having been conceived by him for his own industry. He was not transferring the same to the company as a trader. It cannot be disputed that, if this conclusion of the Tribunal be correct, the receipt of Rs. 3,50,000 has to be regarded as a capital receipt in view of what has been stated in Ukhara Estate Zamindaries case [1979] 120 ITR 549 (SC), wherein the transfer of the leasehold interest in the zamindari property as a land-owner and not as a trader was regarded as transfer as a capital asset and the receipt arising out of that as a capital receipt. Then, if the receipt of Rs. 4,57,448 was taken to be a professional receipt, no fault can be found with the same as, admittedly, this included "fees for technical know-how" and other promotional expenditure. As to the allowing of expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,75,000 only, no exception can be taken as the assessee himself had admitted before the board of directors that he could produce receipts for about Rs. 2,00,000 only. Of this, Rs. 25,000 was allocated as expenditure incurred in connection with the receipt of capital asset amounting to Rs. 3,50,000.
Sir Sobha Singh & Sons (P) Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. ... on 22 December, 1994
He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ukhara Estate Zamindaries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 549 (SC) for the proposition that receipt on account of Salami is of a capital nature and will not be income in the hands of the company. The learned counsel also referred to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which prohibit any such payments and submitted that in case the company had received any such payment it could have been proceeded against under the relevant provisions of the said Act.