Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Shrichand Raheja And Another vs S.C. Prasad, (Appropriate Authority) ... on 28 September, 1994
16. However, the Bombay High Court in a subsequent decision, in Shri-chand Raheja v. S. C. Prasad, Appropriate Authority [1995] 213 ITR 33, has held that the discounting has to be done only for the period commencing from the date on which the payment was tendered to the transferor and ending with the date on which the balance amount is payable subsequent to that date. The reasoning of the Bombay High Court is as follows (page 59) :
Section 269UD in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269UC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pradip Ramanlal Sheth vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 March, 1992
In Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India [1993] 204 ITR 866, the Gujarat High Court, while considering the aforesaid question, has held that under the scheme of Chapter XX-C of the Act, where the whole or any part of the consideration as found in the agreement of transfer is deferred to a future date, then the value of such consideration payable after such date shall be deemed to be the discounted value of such consideration, as on the date of such agreement for transfer, determined by adopting such rate of interest as may be prescribed in this behalf by the statutory rules. The court held that the period for the purpose of computing would be determined from the date of the agreement itself and the court held as under (page 877) :
C. Venkata Rao vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 13 March, 1998
17. The above view of the Bombay High Court was followed by the Karna-taka High Court in C. Venkata Rao v. Union of India [1999] 236 ITR 895, wherein it was held that discounting should be done only from the date of actual payment by the appropriate authority. I am in entire agreement with the view expressed by the High Court of Bombay. A plain reading of the definition contained in Section 269UA(b) of the Act makes it clear that the value of the consideration payable after the date of the agreement is the discounted value and the definition has nowhere provided that the discounted value should be ascertained with reference to the date of agreement. In my view, the expression, "as on the date of transfer" in Section 269UA(b) refers to the consideration payable on that date and the section is silent as to the commencement of the period to ascertain the period for the determination of the discounted value. As already observed by me, "discount" means the present value of the amount due in future and if that is the object of discount there are no justifiable reasons to hold that the discounting should be done from the date of the agreement. The later decision of the Bombay High Court has dissented from the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court referred to above, and for the same reasons, I am unable to share the views expressed by the Gujarat High Court. In so far as the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court is concerned, the controversy that arose for consideration was different.
Smt. Vimla Devi G. Maheshwari vs S.K. Laul And Ors. on 10 March, 1993
15. The Bombay High Court in Smt. Vimla Devi G. Maheshwari v. S. K. Laul [1994] 208 ITR 734, has also taken a similar view and held that the discounting has to be done from the date of the agreement.
Section 269UG in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1