Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.20 seconds)Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M. Viswanathan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 March, 1978
In M. Viswanathan v. CIT , the question of applicability of section 54 was referred to by the Madras High Court. The assessee therein resided for one year and five months, before he sold the house property. On the ground that the use was for a period less than two years, it was contended by the Revenue that the provisions of section 54 of the Act would not be attracted. The learned Chief Justice speaking for the Bench observed that the words "two years immediately preceding the date of sale" and "was being used" were important and that if the words "in the two years immediately preceding" were stood by themselves, some ambiguity would have arisen. But those words are coupled with the words "was being used" which in English language extended to the date of transfer as the expression in the English language was described as past continuance, a continuity which extended up to the termination date which is clearly stated as the date of transfer. For the reasons, we have already indicated above, with great respect, we are unable to accept the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Abdul Sattar M. Mokashi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 August, 1988
The same view was expressed by the Karnataka High Court in M. Abdul Sattar v. CIT , wherein it was held that the words "in the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer" could only mean at any time within two years and that the words "was being used" cannot restrict or control "in the two years" occurring earlier and that they do not restrict or curtail the period occurred in the earlier part of the section. For the reasons we have already mentioned above, we are in respectful agreement with the reasoning and conclusions of the Delhi High Court and the Karnataka High Court in the cases cited supra.
S. Harnam Singh Suri vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 20 May, 1983
9. Section 54 of the Act came up for consideration before a learned single judge of the Delhi High Court in S. Harnam Singh Suri v. CBDT . There the question was raised by the assessee in a writ petition and not by way of reference under section 256 of the Act. The learned single judge having referred to the earlier view taken by the Madras High Court expressed the view that past continuous tense used in section 54 only meant that whenever used in the preceding two years, the house should have been used by the assessee as a residence for himself or his parent and that the word "in" read with "mainly" could never mean "continuously". So, the house need not have been continuously used for a period of two years for the purpose of residence by the assessee or his parent prior to its sale so as to claim exemption under section 54 of the Act.