Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.01 seconds)Section 54EC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54F in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shillong vs Assam Travels Shipping Service, ... on 24 September, 1992
248), Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Controller of Estate Duty v.
Smt. K. Narasamma (125 ITR 196) and that of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service (199 ITR 1). We are,
therefore, of the view that the assessee here is seeking review of the
order of the Tribunal and this Tribunal is having no such power to make
a review. There was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal much less
any mistake apparent on record. We thus do not find any merit in this
Miscellaneous Petition moved by assessee.
Controller Of Estate Duty vs Estate Of Late Smt. K. Narasamma ... on 30 November, 1979
248), Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Controller of Estate Duty v.
Smt. K. Narasamma (125 ITR 196) and that of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service (199 ITR 1). We are,
therefore, of the view that the assessee here is seeking review of the
order of the Tribunal and this Tribunal is having no such power to make
a review. There was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal much less
any mistake apparent on record. We thus do not find any merit in this
Miscellaneous Petition moved by assessee.
Dr. Vinay T. Karnawat vs Income Tax Officer [Alongwith Ita Nos. ... on 31 May, 2005
"12. No doubt, it has been clearly mentioned by the Co-ordinate Bench
that deeming provision of Sec.50C would not be applicable for construing
the meaning of the term 'full value of consideration' vis-à-vis application
of Sec.54F of the Act. Crux of the decision is that once the entire
amount of consideration stood deployed, or invested in accordance with
Sec.54F, then provision of Sec.50C could not be invoked. The same view
was also taken by the Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Prakash Karnawat
Vs. ITO(supra). However, admittedly in the given case, entire capital
gains were not invested by the assessee in the bonds. The total sale
consideration received was ` 79 lakhs and the capital gains on such
transaction after deducting indexed cost of acquisition, as per the
assessee's own working out to ` 75,15,796/-. Assessee had invested only
` 75 lakhs in the SIDBI capital gain Bonds. Had the assessee invested
whole amount of ` 75,15,796/- which was the capital gains arising out of
the transaction, then may be, the full value of consideration could be
taken as the amount specified in the conveyance deed, for the purpose of
giving effect to the exemption under section 54EC of the Act. However,
assessee here has endeavored to make an artificial split of a single
transaction. The sale of 7.98 acres of land was effected through a single
document and the sale consideration mentioned shown was ` 79 lakhs. In
our opinion an artificial split of a single transaction for claiming a better
benefit than what is lawfully available cannot be accepted or encouraged.
The sale executed through a single conveyance deed can be considered
only as one single transaction, not amenable to any such split. It was not a
case of two separate transactions. Assessee had simply taken out 0.02
acres from 7.98 acres of land, and considered it as an independent sale.
1