Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Acit, Bulandshahr vs M/S Rama Dairy Products Ltd, ... on 25 January, 2017

M/S.Jaidayal Prannath Kapur vs Income Tax Officer on 18 September, 2018

16. We find that the substantial question of law, which was framed for consideration in the case of Union Co. (Motors) Ltd., is identical to question No.1 framed in this appeal. The said question was answered in favour of the assessee following the earlier decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Raka Food Products [reported in (2005) 277 ITR 261 (Mad.)]. The operative portions of the judgment in Union Co. (Motors) Ltd., read as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Dheerumal Sharma, Mandi vs Ito, Sundernagar on 23 July, 2018

The Hon'ble High Court held the capital gain to be long term applying the ratio laid down in the decision of the Madras High court in the case of ACIT vs Raka Food Products 277 ITR 261 ,wherein it was held that where the transfer is of the entire undertaking as a whole and land forms part of the assets of the undertaking it is not possible to bifurcate the sale consideration in a particular asset and section 50 there cannot be said to apply since it deals with depreciable assets. In substance the Hon'ble High Court held that since the assessee had transferred an undertaking and the consolidated receipt could not be bifurcated between the land and building and therefore the asset transferred was not a depreciable asset and the capital gain earned thereon therefore could not be treated as STCG.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Het Ram Sharma, Mandi vs Ito, , Sundernagar on 23 July, 2018

The Hon'ble High Court held the capital gain to be long term applying the ratio laid down in the decision of the Madras High court in the case of ACIT vs Raka Food Products 277 ITR 261 ,wherein it was held that where the transfer is of the entire undertaking as a whole and land forms part of the assets of the undertaking it is not possible to bifurcate the sale consideration in a particular asset and section 50 there cannot be said to apply since it deals with depreciable assets. In substance the Hon'ble High Court held that since the assessee had transferred an undertaking and the consolidated receipt could not be bifurcated between the land and building and therefore the asset transferred was not a depreciable asset and the capital gain earned thereon therefore could not be treated as STCG.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1