Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.66 seconds)Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Mtt. Ar. S. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar on 22 December, 1952
26. As regards grounds No. 2, 3 & 4 are concerned, in the remand report,
the AO has clearly mentioned that this is a case of inheritance of property
and there change in the ownership and therefore, this fact cannot be denied
and therefore, the submissions of the assessee in para 5.2 of the CIT(A)'s
order are found to be convincing and therefore, the amount paid by the
assessee for the purpose of clearing of the mortgage is to be regarded as cost
of acquisition u/s 48 read with section 55(2) in view of the decision of
31 ITA Nos. 250,248 & 249(Asr)2010
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Arunachalam 227 ITR 222
(surpa). The AO is directed to allow relief to the assessee accordingly and
re-compute income accordingly. As held in the case of M/s. Amritsar Rice
Mills Ltd and also hereinabove, there cannot be a double taxation and
therefore, the capital gains declared by the assessee as per sale deed is
directed to be accepted. Accordingly, grounds No.2,3 & 4 of the assessee are
allowed.
Avtar Singh Brar, Chandigarh vs Assessee on 23 February, 2011
As mentioned hereinabove,
our decision in the case of Sh. Satpal Singh vs. ITO in ITA
No.248(Asr)/2010 is identically applicable in the present appeal in the case
of Sh. Amandeep Singh in ITA No.249(ASsr)/2010 and accordingly, the
present appeal is partly allowed.
V. Ramaswamy Iyengar And K.R. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 May, 1960
As such findings given by the ld. CIT(A)
that this is also not a case of inheritance of property so as to
attract the judicial ruling in the case of Arunachalam and
Daksha Raman Lal (supra) on page 12 of this order is against
the facts of the case.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 176 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 282 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 May, 2006
There is absolutely no mention in the
assessment order that sale proceeds of the stock and realization of other
current assets had been utilized elsewhere. Thus, the submissions of the
assessee with regard to the source of deposits in the bank account remain
unrebutted. Since the addition has been made in the reassessment
proceedings; the onus was squarely on the revenue to establish that there
was escape of income. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of
21 ITA Nos. 250,248 & 249(Asr)2010
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Tin Mfg. Co. of India vs. CIT
(1996) 222 ITR 323. The AO could not have made the addition merely on
the ground that the no sale bill etc. was produced in support of the
contention and deposits were made out of sale proceeds of stock and
realization of current assets. Without prejudice and independent of the above
view, it is submitted that existence of stock and current assets as on
31.3.1994 stand established. It is not the claim of the department that stock
position shown in the books of account as on 31.3.1994 was bogus. If the
view that the stock was sold during the financial year relevant to Asstt. Year
in appeal is not accepted, the only presumption remains is that it was sold in
the earlier assessment years still to that extent cash was available with the
assessee. The source of the deposits in the bank account is still liable to be
accepted by allowing the benefit of telescoping the investment in the bank
deposits against the cash available of earlier assessment years.