Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)Section 50C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54F in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri K Ramachandra Rao on 14 July, 2014
6.3 In the present case, the assessee purchased new asset on
05.10.2009 and had transferred the original asset on 8.01.2008.
As per Section 54F (1) of the Act, the exemption would be
available if the assessee purchased the residential house within
two years after the date when transfer took place. As per the
judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the provisions of
section 54F(4) would not be attracted in the event if the
assessee has purchased or constructed the residential house
within the period prescribed under section 54(1) of the Act. In
the case in hand, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that
the assessee had purchased within two years [the period
prescribed u/s. 54[F(1)] a new asset on 05.10.2009 from the
date of transfer of the original asset The Revenue has not cited
or placed on record any contrary Judgment by the Hon'ble
Jurisdictional High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore,
respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra
Rao (supra), we hereby set aside the impugned order and direct
the AO to re-compute the assessed income after granting the
benefit of section 54F of the Act to the assessee."
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Section 54 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Jumma Masjid, Mercara vs Kodimaniandra Deviah on 11 January, 1962
In Jumma
Masjid v. Kodiamaniandra AIR 1962 SC 847, at page 850 Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to, with approval, Lord Loreburn's
observation, "We are not entitled to read words into an Act of
Parliament unless clear reasons for it is to be found within the four
corners of the Act itself."
Tarulata Shyam And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 February, 1971
"7. When a provision for tolerance band is not prescribed in the statute, it
cannot be open to us to read the same into the statutory provisions of
section 50 C- no matter howsoever desirable such a provision be, even if
that be so. What the provisions of section 50C clearly require is that when
stated sales consideration is less than stamp duty valuation for the
purposes of transfer, the stamp duty value will be subject to the
safeguards built in the provision itself, taken as the sales consideration for
the purposes of computing capital gains. Casus omissus, which broadly
refers to the principle that a matter which has not been provided in the
statue but should have been there, cannot be supplied by us, as, to do so
will be clearly beyond the call and scope of our duty which is only to
interpret the law is it exists. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Smt.
Tarulata Shyam v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 345 at has observed :