Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)The Gujarat Finance Act, 1932
B.B. Sarkar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 May, 1981
7. The next decision we would like to refer is to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in B.B. Sarkar's case (supra). In this case their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court had held that the expression used in a statute should ordinarily be Understood in the sense in which it is best harmonious with the object of the statute and which effectuates the object of the Legislature and that it is, therefore, necessary to read Section 54 in the context of the subject-matter and its setting in the scheme of capital gains and the object of the exemption and to ascertain its true import. Their Lordships held that the main purpose of Section 54 is to give relief in respect of profit on the sale of a residential house, that if the assessee is entitled to relief on the fulfilment of either of the two conditions, that is to say, either purchasing a house property within one year or constructing the house within two years, it would be improper to hold that on fulfilment of both the conditions he would be disentitled to that relief, that it is the fulfilment of two alternative conditions that is contemplated by Section 54 and that where both the conditions are fulfilled within the time stipulated, the assessee will be entitled to the relief Under the section. In the said case, the department denied the relief to the assessee under Section 54 in respect of the amounts spent by him in constructing an additional floor on the dwelling house which he had purchased after dis posing of his old residential house at No. 1 Park Lane, Calcutta. This decision also supports the contention of the appellant's counsel.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I vs Kodandas Chanchlomal on 28 June, 1985
In a recent decision in CIT v. Kodandas Chanchlomal [1985] 155 ITR 273 their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court have held that a house property for the purpose of Section 54 has the same meaning as the concept of house property under Sections 22 to 27 of the Act which takes into account the entire residential unit and does not mean an independent and complete house and that it takes into account all residential units, particularly in these days when multi-storied flats are becoming the order of the day. In the said case, the assessee sold a residential property valued at Rs. 1,02,000 and earned capital gains of Rs. 79,000. Within two years of the sale of the property he constructed a house for Rs. 96,500 which consisted of a ground floor, a first and a second floor. The assessee leased out the ground floor and used the first and second floors for his personal residence and claimed deduction of Rs. 57,600 under Section 54 on the ground that part of the capital gains in respect of the sale of the property was used for construction of a new residential house property. Accepting the assessec's claim, their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court held that a substantial portion of the new house property was retained by the assessee for his personal purposes, and since the construction of the new building was completed within the statutory period of .two years, both the conditions for grant of exemption were fulfilled and the assessee was entitled to prorata exemption under Section 54 from the liability to tax on capital gains to the extent of the value of the portion of the property in his occupation. Their Lordships followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in Addl.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Vidya Prakash Talwar on 30 April, 1981
CIT v. Vidya Prakash Talwar [1981] 132 ITR 661 and an earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976] 105 ITR 43. In our view this decision of the Gujarat High Court clinches the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat ... vs Natu Hansraj on 19 January, 1976
CIT v. Vidya Prakash Talwar [1981] 132 ITR 661 and an earlier decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976] 105 ITR 43. In our view this decision of the Gujarat High Court clinches the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Section 22 in The Gujarat Finance Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Col. H. H. Sir Harinder Singh vs C.I.T. Punjab, Haryana, J.& K. & ... on 15 October, 1971
Shri Patil submitted that there was a common kitchen and a common ration card for the assessee's entire family and that, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption claimed by him in respect of the investment made in the purchase of these four flats as the purchase of a house property within the meaning of Section 54(1). Shri Patil next argued that assuming that these flats should be considered as different houses, yet the assessee cannot be denied the relief claimed by him as, according to him, 'a house property' would include house properties also. In support of his submission, Shri Patil relied on Col. H.H. Sir Harinder Singh v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 416 (SC) and pointed out that in the said case, allowance in respect of self-occupied property was allowed in respect of two residential houses under the first proviso to Section 9(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that this interpretation was accepted by the Parliament while enacting Section 23(2)(ii) of the 1961 Act by restricting the self-occupied property allowance to one house only at the assessee's option. Shri Patil compared the language of Section 5(1)(iv) and Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and Section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 and pointed out that wherever the Parliament intended to restrict the allowance to one property, the Parliament h ad taken care to specify the same in express terms. The learned counsel argued that there was no such restriction in Section 54(1).