Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Reebok India Company on 18 November, 2005
Reliance stands placed on several decisions, as in the case of
CIT vs. Reebok India Co. [2007] 291 ITR 455 (Del); United Airlines vs. CIT [2006] 287
ITR 281 (Del); Krishna Oberoi vs. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 105 (AP); and CIT vs.
H.M.T. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 820 (Kar).
United Airlines vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors. on 13 February, 2006
Reliance stands placed on several decisions, as in the case of
CIT vs. Reebok India Co. [2007] 291 ITR 455 (Del); United Airlines vs. CIT [2006] 287
ITR 281 (Del); Krishna Oberoi vs. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 105 (AP); and CIT vs.
H.M.T. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 820 (Kar).
Krishna Oberoi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 June, 2002
Reliance stands placed on several decisions, as in the case of
CIT vs. Reebok India Co. [2007] 291 ITR 455 (Del); United Airlines vs. CIT [2006] 287
ITR 281 (Del); Krishna Oberoi vs. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 105 (AP); and CIT vs.
H.M.T. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 820 (Kar).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs H.M.T. Bearings Ltd. on 23 March, 1999
Reliance stands placed on several decisions, as in the case of
CIT vs. Reebok India Co. [2007] 291 ITR 455 (Del); United Airlines vs. CIT [2006] 287
ITR 281 (Del); Krishna Oberoi vs. Union of India [2002] 257 ITR 105 (AP); and CIT vs.
H.M.T. Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 820 (Kar).
Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar And ... on 15 April, 1963
leasee. Reliance stands placed on the binding decisions in the case of Raja Bahadur
Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh vs. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 513 (PC); Member for the
Board of Agricultural Income Tax vs. Sindhurani Chaudhurani & Ors. [1957] 32 ITR
169 (SC); Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 506 (SC);
CIT vs. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 422 (SC); R.K. Palshikar (HUF) vs. CIT
[1988] 172 ITR 311 (SC); A.R. Krishnamurthy vs. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 417 (SC); CIT vs.
Khimline Pumps Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR 459 (Bom), besides by the Special Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Jt. CIT vs. Mukund Ltd. [2007] 106 ITD 231 (Mum) (SB). In all
these cases, lease premium or salami was held as transfer of substantial interest in favour
of the leasee, i.e., out of the entire bundle of rights that absolute ownership entails. There
was, therefore, conferment of a right in the capital field for a price, adverting to section
105 of the Transfer of the Property Act. The decisions relied upon by the Assessing
Officer (A.O.) were also distinguished by him.
The Member For The Board Of Agricultural ... vs Smt. Sindhurani Chaudhurani.(With ... on 24 April, 1957
leasee. Reliance stands placed on the binding decisions in the case of Raja Bahadur
Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh vs. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 513 (PC); Member for the
Board of Agricultural Income Tax vs. Sindhurani Chaudhurani & Ors. [1957] 32 ITR
169 (SC); Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 506 (SC);
CIT vs. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 422 (SC); R.K. Palshikar (HUF) vs. CIT
[1988] 172 ITR 311 (SC); A.R. Krishnamurthy vs. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 417 (SC); CIT vs.
Khimline Pumps Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR 459 (Bom), besides by the Special Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Jt. CIT vs. Mukund Ltd. [2007] 106 ITD 231 (Mum) (SB). In all
these cases, lease premium or salami was held as transfer of substantial interest in favour
of the leasee, i.e., out of the entire bundle of rights that absolute ownership entails. There
was, therefore, conferment of a right in the capital field for a price, adverting to section
105 of the Transfer of the Property Act. The decisions relied upon by the Assessing
Officer (A.O.) were also distinguished by him.
Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 30 November, 1960
leasee. Reliance stands placed on the binding decisions in the case of Raja Bahadur
Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh vs. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 513 (PC); Member for the
Board of Agricultural Income Tax vs. Sindhurani Chaudhurani & Ors. [1957] 32 ITR
169 (SC); Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 506 (SC);
CIT vs. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 422 (SC); R.K. Palshikar (HUF) vs. CIT
[1988] 172 ITR 311 (SC); A.R. Krishnamurthy vs. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 417 (SC); CIT vs.
Khimline Pumps Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR 459 (Bom), besides by the Special Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Jt. CIT vs. Mukund Ltd. [2007] 106 ITD 231 (Mum) (SB). In all
these cases, lease premium or salami was held as transfer of substantial interest in favour
of the leasee, i.e., out of the entire bundle of rights that absolute ownership entails. There
was, therefore, conferment of a right in the capital field for a price, adverting to section
105 of the Transfer of the Property Act. The decisions relied upon by the Assessing
Officer (A.O.) were also distinguished by him.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Assam Etc vs The Panbari Tea Co. Ltd on 19 April, 1965
Without doubt, it is the real nature of the arrangement or transaction, and not
merely the words or phrases employed, even as cautioned by the apex court in Panbari
Tea Co. Ltd. (supra), i.e., the substance of the transaction, that is relevant and paramount.
To this extent, we are in agreement with the A.O. In the present case, as found by the ld.
CIT(A), the amount charged by MMRDA as lease premium is equal to the rate prevailing
as per the stamp duty ready reckoner for the acquisition of commercial premises. There is
no provision in the lease agreement for termination of the lease at the instance of the
lessee and, hence, for refund of lease premium under regular circumstances. Even the
additional floor space index (FSI), given for additional space, is as per the ready reckoner
rate only. The whole transaction is thus for grant of leasehold rights, and only a transfer
of property; the lease premium being the consideration for the leasehold rights, which
comprise a bundle of rights, including the right of possession, exploitation and its' long
term enjoyment. The charges for FSI also partake the character of a capital asset in the
form of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), so that the owner (of land) had
transferred the rights of development and exploitation of land, which are again capital in
nature. The restrictive convents toward excavation seek to retain the right of the State to
4
ITA No. 5808/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)
Asst.
R.K.Palshikar (Huf) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... on 5 May, 1988
leasee. Reliance stands placed on the binding decisions in the case of Raja Bahadur
Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh vs. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 513 (PC); Member for the
Board of Agricultural Income Tax vs. Sindhurani Chaudhurani & Ors. [1957] 32 ITR
169 (SC); Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 506 (SC);
CIT vs. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 422 (SC); R.K. Palshikar (HUF) vs. CIT
[1988] 172 ITR 311 (SC); A.R. Krishnamurthy vs. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 417 (SC); CIT vs.
Khimline Pumps Ltd. [2002] 258 ITR 459 (Bom), besides by the Special Bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Jt. CIT vs. Mukund Ltd. [2007] 106 ITD 231 (Mum) (SB). In all
these cases, lease premium or salami was held as transfer of substantial interest in favour
of the leasee, i.e., out of the entire bundle of rights that absolute ownership entails. There
was, therefore, conferment of a right in the capital field for a price, adverting to section
105 of the Transfer of the Property Act. The decisions relied upon by the Assessing
Officer (A.O.) were also distinguished by him.