Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.80 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income Tax Gujarat-Ii, ... vs R.M. Amin on 26 November, 1976

16. Yet another aspect is that Section 46(2) levies tax on capital gains by creating an artificial situation in the sense that the transaction envisaged under Section 46(2) is really not a transfer (vide Supreme Court decision in R. M. Amin's case (supra). Now, if the benefit of Section 47(v) is denied to the transaction envisaged in Section 46(2) it would mean that a benefit available on real transfers and real capital gains would not be available on transactions which are artificially roped in for computation of capital gains. This would obviously be an absurd situation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 78 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Uma Devi Budhia And Ram Prasad Budhia on 6 November, 1984

9. In all the other four decisions (viz.) M.A. Alagappan's case (supra), Murarilal Budhia's case (supra), M.A. Chidambaram's case (supra) and Uma Devi Budhia's case (supra) the results are against the respective assessees and it is held that in view of Section 46(2) chargeable capital gains do arise on receipt of money or other assets by a shareholder on liquidation of a company.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - L M Sharma - Full Document
1   2 Next