Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.23 seconds)Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 55 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 49 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra ... on 6 January, 1986
Thus, we are not persuaded to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue that in such a case as the present one, according to the provisions of section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where cost cannot be ascertained, the fair market price has to be taken into consideration because the very basis of capital gains to us appears to be that at some point of time, the person who initially acquires acquires the property at some cost in terms of money." [Commissioner of Commissioner of Income Tax v. H.H. Maharaja Sahib Shri Lokendra Singhji, (1986) 162 ITR 93].
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981
5.4 Mr.Vyas further contended that reading of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Srinivasa Setty (supra) by the Tribunal was not correct; the decision deals with a case of goodwill and the said aspect was taken care of by subsequent amendment. That the correct ratio of the said decision was that the scheme of the Act contemplated an asset with cost and the observations in relation to computation provisions were made in the context of nature and character of an asset and the date of acquisition had also to be taken into consideration only in light of the kind of asset. In other words, it was submitted that an asset like goodwill which would have no fixed date of acquisition was not contemplated to be an asset which would have cost of acquisition as the same would be acquired over a period of time. He, therefore, urged that the said decision does not assist the case of the assessee but in fact supported the stand of the Revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Markapakula Agamma on 20 January, 1987
16. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Markapakula Agamma, (1987) 165 ITR 386 was once again called to resolve almost a similar controversy between the assessee and the Revenue. There the assessee was a protected tenant and acquired rights in the land itself by virtue of Section 40(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The said rights in the land came to be compulsorily acquired by the State Government pursuant to acquisition proceedings for the purpose of the Housing Board and the lands vested in the State Government. Out of the total compensation paid by the State Government the protected tenant was entitled to 60% on the basis of provision of the aforesaid Tenancy and Agricultural Act. In relation to the said compensation question arose as to whether the assessee was liable to be charged under the head 'Capital gains'.
Shri Sunil Siddharthbhai Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad ... on 27 September, 1985
The case of Srinivasa Setty (supra) came to be applied by the Apex Court itself in a subsequent decision in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad - Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1985) 156 ITR 509. The question before the Apex Court was : where a partner of a firm transfers personal assets held by him to a firm as his contribution towards the capital whether such contribution would amount to a transfer and, if yes, whether there was any consideration within the meaning of Section 48 of the Act so as to charge income under the head "Capital gains". The Apex Court answered the first part of the question in favour of the Revenue holding that admittedly when a partner transfers his personal assets to a partnership firm there would be extinguishment of his exclusive rights which would amount to transfer within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act.