Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (3.96 seconds)
Chandrakant S. Choksi Huf, Mumbai vs Assessee on 26 November, 2014 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Chandanben Maganlal on 12 May, 1999

Similar view has been taken by the Hon' ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Chandanben Maganlal (supra), wherein the Hon' ble High Court held that sale proceeds invested for purchase of interest in the residential house owned by the assessee' s husband and son, amounts to purchase and hence entitled for exemption u/s 54F. Section 54F, per se, does not prohibit or bar that fractional interest or share in the property, which has been purchased, will not be entitled for deduction u/s 54F. Thus, following the said proposition laid down by the Hon' ble Court, we hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F on the amount spent on acquisition of rights in a property from the other members of the family or HUF.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - A R Dave - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (Deceased) on 17 December, 1991

4.3 Lastly, regarding whether registration of MoU is compulsory or not, we find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon' ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (supra) and Delhi High Court in the case of Balraj v. CIT (supra). In the latter decision, the Hon' ble Delhi High Court held that for the purpose of attracting the provisions of section 54, it was not necessary that the assessee should become owner of the property on only through registration, as the section speaks of "
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Madras Cricket Club on 1 May, 1934

Similarly, Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Madras Cricket Club (supra), held that a person may be assessed as an owner of a building and it is not necessary that he should also be an owner of the land on which the building stands. From the ratio as culled out in the aforesaid decisions, it is amply evident that the land is an independent and identifiable capital asset, which can be separate from superstructure built up on it. A person can be the owner of a superstructure and can earn income separately from such a superstructure, either in the form of rent or by gain on selling it. It is not necessary that the assessee should hold the exclusive right on the land while purchasing the house or vice versa. Such kind of arrangement always happen in the case of lease land. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contention of the department that, simply because the property has been sold without the 8 ITA No.3540/Mum/2013. Shri Chandrakant S.Choksi HUF.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs T.N. Aravinda Reddy on 1 February, 1978

4.2 So far as the issue, whether the assessee can purchase fractional interest, that is, buying of share in the property and whether it can be held as purchase or not, we find that this issue, in principle, is settled by the decision of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T.N.Aravinda Reddy (supra). In the case before the Hon' ble Supreme Court, four brothers were the members of HUF, who had partitioned a joint family property, leaving an undivided common house. The three brothers executed a release deed in favour of the elder brother for a consideration which was treated as purchase of the house by the elder brother. The elder brother had sold one of his houses and out of the sale proceeds, paid the consideration to his brothers to acquire their shares in the house. In this context it was held that the elder brother would be entitled to relief u/s 54(1).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 58 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dr. D.L. Ramachandra Rao on 19 February, 1997

realized on sale of land, which was held for a period of 36 months will be treated as long term capital gain, when the building which was constructed and sold on the said land was held for less than the period of 36 months, and hence, should be treated as short term capital gain. In this context, the Courts have held that the land is an independent and identifiable capital asset and it continue to remain so even after the construction of the building thereon. If the land are held by the assessee for a period of more than six months, then it is not possible to say that by constructing of a building thereon, the land which was a long term capital asset, ceases to be a long term capital asset. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. D.L.Ramachandra Rao (supra) has held that there can be a bifurcation of a capital gain into long term capital gain pertaining to land and short term capital gain pertaining to superstructure.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Jagir Singh Balraj Kumar And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 September, 1997

4.3 Lastly, regarding whether registration of MoU is compulsory or not, we find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon' ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (supra) and Delhi High Court in the case of Balraj v. CIT (supra). In the latter decision, the Hon' ble Delhi High Court held that for the purpose of attracting the provisions of section 54, it was not necessary that the assessee should become owner of the property on only through registration, as the section speaks of "
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - A Bhan - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Vidya Prakash Talwar on 30 April, 1981

This proposition has been reiterated by the Delhi High Court and Gujarat High Court in the case of Addl.CIT v. Vidya Prakash Talwar 132 ITR 661 (Del) and CIT v. Chandanaben Maganlal 245 ITR 182 (Guj.). Thus, on both the counts for which the A.O. and CIT(A) have rejected the assessee' s claim for deduction is no longer sustainable in view of the aforesaid decisions. He further submitted that even registration of MoU, sale agreement or purchase agreement, is not necessary and in support of this proposition he relied upon the following decisions:-
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 18 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pradeepkumar M. Shah on 5 December, 1978

The Assessing Officer observed that how the property can be sold without the land on which it was constructed. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F for buying the one half share, that is, the right in the property from Smt.Indrani C.Choksi, who was one of the members of the HUF. Thus, the entire arrangement was made to avoid tax on long term capital gain and to get benefit u/s 54F. Thereafter he discussed the intention and purpose of section 54F and also referred to the decision of the Hon' ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. V.Pradeepkumar, reported in 290 ITR page 90. After detailed discussion he denied benefit of deduction u/s 54F for Rs.60,25,000.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - V B Eradi - Full Document
1