Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (0.49 seconds)Section 2 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 40 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan vs Municipal Board Of Sitapur And Anr. on 3 December, 1964
Further, judgment of the apex Court in the case of Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmed Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur (supra), relied upon by the Revenue for the proposition that expression "belonging to" need not confine to absolute title also does not help the Revenue since this judgment was considered by the apex Court in the case of Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan (supra) but it was still held that for the purpose of Section 2(m) of WT Act, 1957, the expression "belonging to" would denote only an absolute title in rem. Hence, the aforesaid judgment stands distinguished by the apex Court itself.
Section 27 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay Etc vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 27 May, 1997
8. The Hon'ble JM held, since there are contrary views of different Benches of the Tribunal on the point, the matter has to go to Special Bench/larger Bench. However, the AM did not agree with the above proposition for the reason that the Hon'blo Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. (supra), has decided the issue ultimately and defined the meaning of the word "owner" in the context of Section 22 of the IT Act. AM agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the Revenue authorities and held that the society has only a "husk" of the title and it cannot be called "a very important element of the husk" because the assessee has the right of defence in respect of possession not only against the society but also against the rest of the world. Hence he upheld the view taken by the Revenue authorities. He also held that the provisions of Section 40(5) of the Finance Act, 1983 does not prohibit the consideration of the provisions of Section 4(7) of the WT Act, There is no conflict between the provisions of Section 40(2) of Finance Act, 1983 and Section 4(7) of the WT Act. The provisions of WT Act cannot be excluded totally while operating the provisions of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983.