Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in Finance Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 155 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And ... vs Smt. Shantavva on 20 February, 2004
We are afraid that the contention of learned Counsel for the revenue is not correct as the Division Bench has specifically noticed the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Chief CIT v. Smt. Shantavva , wherein the amendment inserted to Section 45(5) of the Act had been specifically dealt with and the similar question, as has been raised in these appeals, was decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Prem Singh Deviditta Mal on 2 December, 1988
12. In the present cases, the dispute relates to the assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99 and during that period, only Section 45(5)(b) of the Act was applicable, which has already been interpreted by this Court and various other Courts, wherein it has been clearly held that Section 45(5)(b)will be attracted only when the assessee receives the enhanced compensation in pursuance of a final award/order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority increasing the compensation. If any amount is received after stay of the award, in pursuance of any interim order, as a payment subject to the final result, it will not be an amount received as enhanced compensation as contemplated under Section 45(5)(b), but only an interim payment received subject to final decision. Since this Court has already taken the view, therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in taking contrary view to the view taken by this Court in IT Ref, No. 26 of 1997 (CIT v. Karanbir Singh decided on 17-1-2007) and IT Appeal No. 695 of 2005 (CIT v. Prem Singh decided on 16-5-2007), by following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Chief CIT v. Smt. Shantavva .
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hindusthan Housing And Land ... on 9 January, 1973
In these decisions, the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (supra) was constantly followed. We do not see any reason to have a contrary view to these judgments, which have already been followed by this Court in IT Ref.
The Amending Act, 1897
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Karanbir Singh on 17 January, 2007
12. In the present cases, the dispute relates to the assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99 and during that period, only Section 45(5)(b) of the Act was applicable, which has already been interpreted by this Court and various other Courts, wherein it has been clearly held that Section 45(5)(b)will be attracted only when the assessee receives the enhanced compensation in pursuance of a final award/order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority increasing the compensation. If any amount is received after stay of the award, in pursuance of any interim order, as a payment subject to the final result, it will not be an amount received as enhanced compensation as contemplated under Section 45(5)(b), but only an interim payment received subject to final decision. Since this Court has already taken the view, therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in taking contrary view to the view taken by this Court in IT Ref, No. 26 of 1997 (CIT v. Karanbir Singh decided on 17-1-2007) and IT Appeal No. 695 of 2005 (CIT v. Prem Singh decided on 16-5-2007), by following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Chief CIT v. Smt. Shantavva .
Bikram Singh & Ors vs The Land Acquisition Collector & Ors on 11 September, 1996
4. Shri Sanjay Bansal, learned senior counsel for the appellant assessee submitted that the substantial questions of law involved in these appeals are squarely covered by the abovesaid two decisions rendered by this Court in IT Ref. No. 26 of 1997 (CIT v. Karanbir Singh, Rajinder Kuti, decided on 17-1-2007) and IT Appeal No. 695 of 2005 (CIT v. Prem Singh, decided on 16-5-2007), in which judgments of the Supreme Court in Bikram Singh and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. and of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Chief CIT v. Smt. Shantavva (supra) were followed. Those cases have been decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in law in taking a view contrary to the view taken by the Karnataka High Court and this Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid view taken by two Division Benches of this Court, following the view taken by the Karnataka High Court has been taken by various other High Courts in the following cases: