Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 147 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Alapati Venkataramiah vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad on 29 March, 1965

M/S. Madathil Brothers vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 October, 2007

43. The decision of the Supreme Court reported in 57 ITR 185 (ALAPATI VENKATARAMIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) on which the Tribunal based its decision and relied on by the revenue is to be understood with reference to Section 12-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. and in the context of the provisions as they stood at the material time.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 6 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

C.S. Atwal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Ludhiana And ... on 22 July, 2015

17. Adverting to clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Act, it may be noticed that the scope and ambit of this clause as explained by CBDT in its circular No.495 dated 23.9.1987 has already been reproduced above. On perusal of this clause, it would be clear that it was intended to cover those cases of transfer of ownership where the prospective buyer becomes owner of the property by becoming a member of a company, cooperative society etc. In the present case, JDA was executed between the society and the developers and there was no transaction involving the developer becoming member of a cooperative society/company etc. in terms of Section 2(47) (vi) of the Act. The surrender of right to obtain plot by the members was for GURBAX SINGHfacilitating the society to enter into the JDA with the developers. There was 2015.07.23 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No.200 of 2013 (O&M) 20 no change in the membership of the society as contemplated under Section 2 (47)(vi) of the Act. Equally Clause (ii) of Section 2(47) of the Act has no applicability in as much as there was no extinguishment of any rights of the assessee in the capital asset at the time of execution of JDA in the absence of any registered conveyance deed in favour of the transferee in view of judgments in Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT, (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC) and Additional CIT vs. Mercury General Corporation (P) Limited, (1982) 133 ITR 525 (Delhi).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 68 - Full Document

Acit, Coimbatore vs Rasi Assets Corporation, Coimbatore on 19 August, 2022

In this connection, useful reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT reported in 57 ITR 185 and the Special Bench decision of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of C. Vedachala Mudaliar v. ITO [1992] 198 ITR (AT) 18]. Hence, in the absence of any registration in favour of the transferee in respect of the immovable property, it has to be inferred that the appellant has not effected any transfer of immovable property during the relevant previous year. When there is no sale of immovable property during the relevant previous year, there is no basis for assessing the notional value of cost of construction of 37.5% in the hands of the appellant. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to note that an assessee is assessable only on the real income earned by it and not on any fictional/ notional income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Laxmidhar Panda, Bhubaneswar vs Addl.Cit, Range-2, Bhubaneswar, ... on 22 September, 2017

17. Adverting to clause (vi) of section 2(47) of the Act, it may be noticed that the scope and ambit of this clause as explained by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its circular No. 495, dated September 22, 1987, has already been reproduced above. On a perusal of this clause, it would be clear that it was intended to cover those cases of transfer of ownership where the prospective buyer becomes owner of the property by becoming a member of a company, co-operative society, etc. In the present case, JDA was executed between the society and the developers and there was no transaction involving the developer becoming a member of a co- operative society/ company, etc., in terms of section 2(47)(vi) of the Act. The surrender of right to obtain a plot by the members was for facilitating the society to enter into the JDA with the developers. There was no change in the membership of the society as contemplated under section 2(47)(vi) of the Act. Equally, clause (ii) of section 2(47) of the Act has no applicability inasmuch as there was no extinguishment of any rights of the assessee in the capital asset at the time of execution of the JDA in the absence of any registered conveyance deed in favour of the transferee in view of the judgments in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185 (SC) and Addl.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zuari Estate Development And ... vs J.R. Kanekar, Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 30 July, 2003

14. The position before the amendment is as can be seen from the judgment of the apex court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185. In that case an agreement was entered into on March 17,1948, with one V to sell all assets for a consideration. On March 17, 1948, the appellant handed over possession of the land and buildings and machinery to the company. On March 20,1948, the company credited the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in its accounts in favour of the appellant and the appellant also made appropriate entries in his own account books. The sale deed in respect of the land was executed in favour of the company on November 22, 1948. The agreement was approved by the board of directors of the company only on March 16, 1949, and by the shareholders of the company at a general meeting on April 10,1949. The question was whether capital gains arose from the sale in the previous year ending March 31, 1948, relevant to the assessment year 1948-49. The apex court held in that case that before section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could be attracted, title must pass by any of the modes mentioned in section 12B, that is, sale, exchange or transfer. "Transfer" therein meant effective conveyance of the capital asset to the transferee. Delivery of possession of immovable property could not by itself be treated as equivalent to conveyance of the immovable property.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - F I Rebello - Full Document

C. Vedachala Mudaliar And ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 27 December, 1991

6. However, the Revenue required us to consider two other decisions of the Supreme Court. The first is the decision in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185. That was a case where, under an agreement dated March 17, 1948, possession of the property was given on the same date but the sale deed was executed only on November 22, 1948. A question arose as to whether capital gains could be assessed in the previous year ended March 31, 1948, relevant to the assessment year 1948-49. The Supreme Court pointed out that a transfer of immovable property could be effected under the Transfer of Property Act only by a registered instrument in writing and since no such instrument existed in the previous year, there could be no assessment to capital gains tax. It will be seen that, in that case, there was no document at all during the previous year and, therefore, the question whether the document takes effect from the date of execution or from the date of registration did not arise for consideration in that case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next