Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Section 80T in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 167B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 64 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Kaur Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 August, 1982
12.7 We have heard the rival submissions. The CIT(A) has given specific findings that the assessee cultivated the land for about three years from the date of the purchase when it was sold. The reasons for the sale have been explained which appears to be reasonable in view of the law and order situation prevailing in the State of Punjab due to the terrorist activities. The assessee also filed sufficient material before the authorities below to show that land is situated far away from the urban limits and was not subjected to tax even on capital gains. These facts strengthen the findings of the CIT(A) that the assessee had no intention to sell the property when it was purchased. Considering the above discussion and the authorities referred to above, we do not find any justification to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). There is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue on this issue. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay Etc vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 27 May, 1997
21.2 The CIT(A) was of the view that this issue has already been decided for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 to 1989-90 in the case of assessee's brother Shri Jagdish Raj Chauhan in which AO was directed to initiate proceedings for the assessment of the AOP if he has jurisdiction to assess the AOP. It was also argued that the AO should follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The CIT(A) was of the view that the assessment is to be made in the case of AOP and the AO was directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 167B of the IT Act while assessing the AOP or assessing the share for the rate purposes because Section 167B was amended by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 and the AOP is to be assessed at the maximum marginal rate in which case share of the member is not at all includible in the income of the members. The CIT(A) was of the view that the directions given in the case of Shri Jagdish Raj Chauhan are clearly applicable in this case and accordingly the addition made in that case of the assessee was deleted.
Income Tax Officer vs Ch. Atchaiah on 11 December, 1995
21.3 The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the AO,
21.4 The learned Counsel for the assessee has, however, argued that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition in respect of the income of the AOP in the share of assessee and of his mother. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah in which the addition was deleted from the hands of the assessee for the very reason that the same is the income of the AOP. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that admittedly this income in respect of sale of plot at village Mussadabad, Nazafgarh, New Delhi was the income of the AOP which is assessed separately in the hands of Shri Janak Raj Chauhan.