Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi ... vs J. Dalmia on 21 May, 1984 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Tata Services Ltd. on 16 January, 1979

7. We are, therefore, left with the question as to whether the right to claim damages in the instant case is a "property of any kind" and thus a "capital asset" under s. 2(14) of the Act. The further question as to whether there was a transfer of such a "capital asset" would arise only if the right to claim damages is held to be a "capital asset". But, again, it will have to be examined if such a right could be transferred. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. [1980] 122 ITR 594, it was contended by Shri Wadhera, learned counsel for the Revenue, that any right which can be called property will be included in the definition of "capital asset" and that a contract for the sale of land is capable of specific performance and is also assignable, and he referred to s. 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, according to Shri Wadhera s. right to obtain conveyance of immovable property is clearly a "property" as contemplated by s. 2(14) of the Act. This argument overlooks the fact that the right to specific performance had been specifically given up by the assessed, J. Dalmia, and what was left was a mere right to sue for damages.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 60 - Full Document

Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd.And ... vs Sri Sankaraswamigal Muttand ... on 26 September, 1962

8. Shri Harihar Lal, learned counsel for the assessed, however, contended that a mere right to sue is not property and it cannot be transferred. He referred to s. 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Swami Motors Transports (P.) Ltd. v. Sri Sankarswamigal Mutt, , he also submitted that the right of the assessed under the contract for sale of immovable property was not in the nature of property in that the assessed was having to interest or right of property. The Supreme Court was concerned with the question of right to purchase property by a tenant under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act with reference to article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the following passage of the judgment (p. 874) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981

12. It was also argued on behalf of the assessed that the cost to the assessed of the acquisition of his aforesaid right under the contract for sale was nil. As such, the transfer would be outside the scope of s. 48 of the Act and in this context reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294. But, the view which we taken makes it unnecessary to go into this question.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 859 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next