Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 50C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 2013
The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Limitation Act, 1963
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs B. Ranga Reddy (D) By L.R. on 9 August, 2019
10. Further, The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH & ORS Vs B. RANGA REDDY (D) BY LRs & ORS,
Shri Vasanth Damodar Shetty 5
ITA No. 6531/M/2019
The top court referred to the "doctrine of adverse possession", under which
a person who is not the original owner becomes the owner because of the
fact that he has been in possession of the property for a minimum of 12-
years, within which the real owner did not seek legal recourse to oust him.
The court held that held that a person, who is not a title holder (original
owner) but gets right over the property under the doctrine of adverse
possession, is empowered to file law suits to reclaim possession in case he is
dispossessed by others. "We hold that a person in possession cannot be
ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years'
period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost
and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the
outgoing person/ owner as the case may be against whom he has
prescribed," the bench said. t said that consequence of the ruling is that
"once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the
plaintiff as well as a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the
Limitation Act (law Which deals with maintainability of law suit on the basis
of time limit) and any person who has perfected title by way of adverse
possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of
dispossession'
Hence as per the above judgement of Apex court, the assessee had become
the owner of the Property well before 2011; as they were resident of property
since 1958.
The Finance Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mormasji Mancharji Vaid on 15 June, 2001
c. Babulal Shambhubhai Rakholia Vs Asstt. Commr. Of Income Tax, Morbi (ITAT
Rajkot)
The Tribunal have relied on judgement of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT
Vs. Mormasji Mancharji Vaid wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble High
Court. "Capital gains-- Accrual- Transfer vis-a-vis registration of immovable
property-Capital gains are deemed to be the income of the previous year in
which the transfer of capital asset is effected-- Expression "effected" in this
context refers to the stage when the transfer of asset becomes complete or
operative in the sense that the title of the transferor is extinguished and the
title of the transferee is created-Word "transfer' as defined in the Act is to be
given the simple meaning as indicated-In respect of transfer of leasehold
rights, transferee was put in possession and was enjoying the property as a
lease-holder- Transfer could be said to have been
effected on the date of execution of the conveyance document- It cannot be
held that the transfer was effected on the date on which the document was
copied out in the books of Registrar. "Tribunal also found that Undisputedly,
Section 56(2) (vii)(b) was brought by amendment in Finance Act, 2013
which was to be made effect from 01.04.2014 and appellant contended that
the date of sale is not 01.04.2013 but 30.03.2013 and in support of its
contention. Appellant filed copy of sale deed on which transferor and
transferee has put their signature along with dated 30.03.2013.