Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.55 seconds)
Ito 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai on 12 September, 2017 cites

K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981

The proviso helps or enables the Department by providing a way to determine the market value. But the proviso is applicable only where the full value for the consideration has not been stated. There is no evidence, direct or inferential, in these cases that the full consideration had not been stated in the document. Capital gains tax was not, therefore, taxable on the present case.--K.P. Vargese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 3460 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Universal Medicare Private Limited on 22 March, 2010

either erroneously decided or that the view taken in Universal Medicare requires reconsideration. In that regard, we must not brush aside the binding precedent or the judgment of a coordinate bench simply because some of the arguments canvassed before us were either not canvassed or if canvassed were not considered. The binding precedent can be ignored only if it is per-incuriam. Such is not the stand before us. All that is urged is several facets and which emerge from a reading of section namely Section 2(22) together with its sub-clauses have not been noticed by the Division Bench while deciding Universal's case.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 219 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh vs C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar on 12 October, 1971

Mr. Gupta, appearing before us for the Revenue would submit that much water has flown after the decision in the case of Rameshwarlal and C. P. Sarathy(supra) because the provision has been amended since then. The fiction therefore must be carried to its logical end and its purpose should not be defeated by narrow construction as was placed on the provision prior to its amendment. In other words, the amendment was brought in only because of such view having taken earlier, is his submission.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 103 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd., India ... on 21 September, 1994

Revenue is that the assessee did not explain that cash was transacted for purchasing the property. It is well settled rule of law that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always upon the Revenue and the onus is upon the Revenue to show that there is under statement of consideration and the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability to establish the negative, namely that the assessee did not transacted in cash beyond the declaration made by him. In such a situation no addition can be sustained in the absence of corroborative material. The Assessing Officer neither stated nor provided any evidence that the assessee paid any on money for purchase of land. There is no material on record to show that the sale consideration was understated or the assessee received anything directly or indirectly over and the above the declared value. Thus, the decision from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the ratio laid down therein CIT vs Gulshan Kumar (2002) 257 ITR 703 (Del.) comes to the rescue of the assessee.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 103 - D K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next