Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Murlidhar Jhawar And Purna Ginning & ... on 4 March, 1962
13. Shri Keshav Prasad, Id. Departmental Representative appeared before us and vehemently supported the order of the Id. CIT (Appeals). It was stated that the facts of the present case are completely different from that of the Murlidhar Jhawar and Ihirna Ginning and Pressing Factory (supra) and V. H. Sheth (supra). The ratio as laid down in these two cases cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. Shri Keshav Prasad relied on the decision rendered in the case of S.P. Jaiswalv. CIT [ 1981] 130 ITR 643 (Punj. and Har.). It was further stated that the firm was formed with an intent to avoid tax. Soon-after the formation of the partnership firm, the agreement for sale was entered into. This is suggestive of the purpose for which the firm was formed. There was no locus standi of the firm under the law. The transaction was entered into by the assessee-company with an ultimate object to avoid tax. In view of this, the cost of acquisition is to be taken, as the cost which the assessee-company paid for acquiring the property. The question of conversion and inflating valuation of the cost of the acquisition is no longer relevant in the matter. He further invited our attention on the real income theory. According to Id. D.R., the liability to pay tax was that of the assessee-company and it cannot divert its liability, to some other person.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs V.H. Sheth And Others on 6 February, 1984
13. Shri Keshav Prasad, Id. Departmental Representative appeared before us and vehemently supported the order of the Id. CIT (Appeals). It was stated that the facts of the present case are completely different from that of the Murlidhar Jhawar and Ihirna Ginning and Pressing Factory (supra) and V. H. Sheth (supra). The ratio as laid down in these two cases cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. Shri Keshav Prasad relied on the decision rendered in the case of S.P. Jaiswalv. CIT [ 1981] 130 ITR 643 (Punj. and Har.). It was further stated that the firm was formed with an intent to avoid tax. Soon-after the formation of the partnership firm, the agreement for sale was entered into. This is suggestive of the purpose for which the firm was formed. There was no locus standi of the firm under the law. The transaction was entered into by the assessee-company with an ultimate object to avoid tax. In view of this, the cost of acquisition is to be taken, as the cost which the assessee-company paid for acquiring the property. The question of conversion and inflating valuation of the cost of the acquisition is no longer relevant in the matter. He further invited our attention on the real income theory. According to Id. D.R., the liability to pay tax was that of the assessee-company and it cannot divert its liability, to some other person.
1