Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.58 seconds)Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Smt. Kala Rani vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 February, 1981
Though the court noticed various decisions of the other High Courts taking a contrary view, notably Kala Rani v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 321 (P & H), C1T v. Steelcrete (P.) Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 45 (Cal), and a few others, yet it chose to follow the view of its own High Court. This authority does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, we have to examine the provisions of Section 2(42A) of the Act. Sections 22 and 23 of the Act referred to income from the house property owned by the assessee.
Jagdish Chand Radhey Shyam vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 6 September, 1972
15. The apex court in the case Jagdish Chand Radhey Shyam v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 2587 ; [1972] PLJ 566, while examining the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act (27 of 1952) held that the event of some default with regard to payment of instalments which might have been committed by an allottee does not give a right to the Government to resume the land or building and at best it is entitled to recover the amount due on account of non-payment of some of the instalments. The court held that the stipulation in the agreement that in the event of default in making the payment the Government shall have the right to resume the property was an unreasonable restriction on the enjoyment of the property and declared the same ultra vires. In the instant case, the sale though made by a private entrepreneur appears to be in identical terms as normally stipulated in various auction sale/sales by Government agencies where there is stipulation in the agreement to the effect that in the event of default in payment monies already paid shall stand forfeited. Thus, even if it be taken that some amount was yet to be paid by the assessee in terms of the agreement, all the same it cannot be construed that he had no right or interest in the property but was a licensee as sought to be projected by counsel for the applicant. The assessee in terms of the agreement having been put in possession in May, 1970, remained in occupation as of right and thus for all intents and purposes was its beneficial owner from the start.
Section 9 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952
Section 2 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sushil Ansal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 March, 1986
In support of his above contention, counsel referred to Sushil Ansal's case [1986] 160 ITR 308 (Delhi). In the cited case, the court was examining the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Act which envisages a tax on the "owner" of the property. The facts leading to the present case were that a piece of land belonging to the Government had been given on perpetual lease. A company known as Ansal and Seigal Properties P. Ltd. entered into an arrangement with the lessee and constructed a multi-storeyed building on this piece of land. The assessee claimed that he is the owner of three of these flats since he paid the entire price thereof and got possession of them as well. Since the assessee had been deriving income, he had shown the same in his income-tax return as the income from the property. This nomenclature of the income was the subject-matter of adjudication. The Income-tax Department was of the view that since registration of the property had not been effected, such an income would be deemed to be an income from "other sources".