Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Raghubar Narain Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 April, 1983

Commr. Of Income Tax-I, Chd vs Usha Saboo on 15 May, 2015

24. The Division Bench then referred the judgment of the Patna High Court in Raghubar Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1984 Income Tax Reports 447 wherein it was held that the price received by the vendor who happened to be the Managing Director and who had agreed under the agreement to delegate his power to the vendee was not the consideration for the sale of the shares alone and that part of the consideration was the price for the delegation of the power and therefore, was not to be taken into account while computing the capital gains of the shares. The Division Bench differed with the view of the Patna High Court to the effect that the powers of the Managing Director could be sold in such a manner and held that such illegal sales would not entitle the assessees to claim exemption of tax on capital gains arising from the sale of shares. We are not concerned with such a case at all and therefore, do not express any opinion regarding the same. Suffice it to note, however, that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court did not hold that the consideration cannot be apportioned even if the Court comes to the conclusion that two distinct assets are sold. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court endorsed the principle of bifurcation and apportionment.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Ashok Behari Lal (Huf) vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 September, 2005

18. It is seen from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that from the very fact that there was no break-up of the consideration in an agreement the same was not conclusive and if in fact the consideration mentioned in the agreement was a composite consideration, apportionment of the consideration between the value of shares and other rights given up should be made. In this connection, the Bombay High Court has also taken note of the fact that in making such an apportionment the market value of the shares would be a relevant consideration. Similar proposition has been laid down by the other High Courts in the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the apportionment of consideration mentioned in the share transfer agreement has to be made and a sum of Rs. 100 has to be apportioned towards the consideration paid by the transferee to the assessee for observance of the various negative covenants mentioned in the share transfer agreement.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Venkatesh (Minor) And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 April, 1999

6. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Raghubar Narain Singh v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 447, wherein the court held that the price received by the vendor who happened to be the managing director and who had agreed under the agreement of sale to delegate his power to the vendee was not the consideration for the sale of the shares alone and that part of the consideration was the price for the delegation of powers and, therefore, that price was not to be taken into account while computing the capital gains on the shares. With great respect, we are unable to subscribe to the view that the powers of the managing director of a company could be sold in that manner, and that such illegal sale would entitle the assessee to claim exemption from tax on capital gains arising from the sale of the shares.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 14 - R J Babu - Full Document

N.K. Leasing And Construction P. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 June, 2006

9. The assessee relies on a judgment of the Patna High Court in Raghubar Narain Singh v. CIT , which was in a different fact situation. There was a finding of the High Court that the price received by the assessee was not only the price for the sale of shares, but also the price for delegating the powers of office of managing director, and accordingly, the court's finding was that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not correct in holding that the entire sum of Rs. 1,94,299 could be treated and taxed in law as capital gains of the assessee on account of the sale of the shares only and not also as a price for delegating the power ignoring the legal character of the agreement.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B Nazki - Full Document

Venkatesh vs Commission Of Income Tax on 22 April, 1999

6. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Raghubar Narain Singh v. CIT(1984) 147 ITR 447, wherein the Court held that the price received by the vendor who happened to be the managing director and who had agreed under the agreement of sale to delegate his power to the vendee was not the consideration for the sale of the shares alone and that part of the consideration was the price for the delegation of powers and, therefore, that price was not to be taken into account while computing the capital gains on the shares. With great respect, we are unable to subscribe to the view that the powers of the managing director of a company could be sold in that manner, and that such illegal sale would entitle the assessee to claim exemption from tax on capital gains arising from the sale of the shares.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1