Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.53 seconds)Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Madhu Kaul vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 January, 2014
85
g.Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Mumbai ITA NO.5749/Mum/2013
h. DCIT Vs Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy (ITAT Mumbai)
i. CIT Vs K Ramakrishanan 48 taxmann.com 55 (Delhi), 225 Taxman
123, 363 ITR 59
j. Ms. Madhu Kaul v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 54/225 Taxman 86 Punjab
and Haryana High Court.
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 vs Vembu Vaidyanathan on 19 July, 2019
Vandana Rana Roy ITA No.6173/M12011 u. Meena Hemnani vs ITO
ITA No.5998/M/2010 v. Sneha Bimal Parekh v. CIT ITA
No.5489/M/2015 w. Sumatichand Tolamal Gouti v.DCIT ITA
No.2009/M/2013 15. x. Sanjeev Lall vs CIT Hon. SC 365ITR 389
y. CIT vs Ram Gopal Hon. Delhi High Court ITA 70/2015 09/02/2015
z. Snehabimal vs PCIT Mumbai ITA 5489/M/2015
aa. Seeta Prabhu vs ITO Mumbai ITA 1020/M/2015
bb. ACIT vs Shri Keyar Hemant Shah TA No. 671 Mumbai/ 2017 dated
02.04.2019
cc. Circular: No. 471, dated 15-10-1986 162 ITR(St)41
dd.Circular : No. 672, dated 16-12-1993 205 ITR(St) 47
CBDT Circular No.672 and 471 dated 16/12/1993 and 15/10/1986
respectively clarifying that ―the allottee gets title to the property on the
issuance of allotment letter and the payment of installments is only a follow
up action and taking the delivery of possession is only a formality.‖
As per Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v Vembu Vaidyanathan (ITA No.
1459 of 2016) dated 22/1/2019 Bombay High Court's stated that in
reference to CBDT Circular No. 471 it is observed that such allotment is final
unless it is cancelled or the allottee withdraws from the scheme and such
allotment would be cancelled only under exceptional circumstances. It further
noted that payment of instalment was only a follow-up action and taking
delivery is only a formality.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhopal vs M/S. Shelly Products And Another on 8 May, 2003
2. The Supreme Court of India in CIT v. Shelly Products and another 261
ITR 367 held that if the assessee has by mistake or inadvertence or on
account of ignorance, included in his income any amount which is exempted
from payment of income-tax or is not income within the contemplation of law,
the assessee may bring the same to the notice of the assessing officer, which
if satisfied, may grant the assessee necessary relief and refund the tax paid
in excess, if any.