Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.55 seconds)
Frick India Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 August, 2001 cites

The Utility Articles Manufacturing ... vs The Raja Bahadur Motilal Bombay Mills ... on 23 March, 1943

18. The other plea of the Department is that tenancy of the assessee in respect of premises in question was month to month basis which used to start from 15th of each month and used to come to an end on 14th of next month. This plea of the Revenue is also not well founded and for this we can refer to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Utility Articles Manufacturing Co. v. Raja Bahadur Motilal (supra) in which their Lordships, while discussing the provisions of Sections 105 and 106 of the IT Act., have observed as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ved Parkash And Sons (Huf) on 28 July, 1993

11. The expression "held" has also been subject-matter of scrutiny and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) (supra) had an occasion to consider the said expression. Assessee of that case entered into an agreement for purchase of flat on 29th May, 1970, and in pursuant to the agreement he was put in possession of the flat on the same day. According to the stipulation the assessee was to pay the amount due in instalments and the final amount was paid on 10th Feb., 1973. The assessee sold the property on 10th Feb., 1973, and claimed that the gain arising was long-term capital gain. Their Lordships explaining the meaning of the word "held" as appearing in Section 2(42A) observed at p 154 of the report as under :
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Smt. Munni Devi And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 19 April, 1977

15. The assessee, as pointed out above, continued to occupy the premises maintaining its possession over the premises in question and LIC of India continued to accept same rent as was being paid before 14th March, 1976, and had been showing the assessee-company as the tenant in their record. The term "possession" consists of two ingredients viz., "animus" i.e., mental element like intention of holding or possessing and "corpus" i.e., effective control. In the case in hand assessee never lost either the animus or corpus or both between 15th March, 1976, to 18th March, 1997, nor LIC had made any effort to take possession of the property from assessee-company prior to 18th Feb., 1997. Accordingly, the status of the assessee was that of tenant holding over. The case of the assessee is fully supported by the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Munni Devi v. State of U.P. (supra) in which their Lordships have laid down as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1   2 Next