Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (4.19 seconds)
Documents citing N. Bagavathy Ammal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai & ... on 27 January, 2003

Tricolor Hotels Limited & Ors. vs Dinesh Jain & Ors. on 9 November, 2022

22. So far as the argument of an interpretation based on the objects, or purpose of the enactment is concerned, it is settled law that where the words of a statute are plain, there can be no recourse to external aids [N. Bhagvattry Ammal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2003) 3 SCC 161 : AIR 2003 SC 1040; Bhaiji v. Sub Divisional Officer, (2003) 1 SCC 692.] . Hence the plain meaning of the expression ―use‖ in Entry 17 has to be applied. Consequently, the limitation (for taking action) commenced in the present case at least from 1988, when the use of the lands had changed. The proceedings were started on 29/01/1993, admittedly beyond the period of three years.
Delhi High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.N. Naik Associates And Anr. And ... on 23 July, 2003

20. Before proceeding to further examine the matter, we may consider the judgment in N. Bagavathy Ammal v. CIT . The apex court therein took the view that in construing the provisions of Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the definition of "capital asset" in Section 2(14) had no relevance. In that case, no doubt what was in issue was Section 46(2) and what the apex court was considering there was the distinction between "transfer of assets" and the distribution of the assets of the company under liquidation. The court also observed that Section 46(2) is in terms an independent charging section and also provides for a distinct method of calculating capital gains.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 49 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Ratnaprabha E Sawant, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 March, 2013

Smt. Ratnaprabha E.Sawant 4 Before us the Learned DR has submitted that the AO has given finding that the land was not cultivated and also the assesee has never carried out any activity on the said land. Therefore, the said land cannot be treated as an agricultural land. The Learned DR has pointed out that undisputedly the NOC from the S.D.O. under Section 63 of a Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act was obtained prior to the sale of land in question which shows that the use of the land was for the purpose of non agricultural land therefore, at the time of transfer of the land, it was no more an agricultural land. She has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. SARIFABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM v. CIT (1993) 204 ITR 631(SC and in case of N. Bagavathy Ammal v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 259 ITR 678.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1