Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
C.Subba Reddy (Huf), Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 29 August, 2003 cites

Mysore Minerals Ltd., M.G. Road, ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka, ... on 1 September, 1999

tax Act it has to be held that even though there is no formal conveyance, the concerned party could be considered to be the beneficial owner. We have also seen the construction agreement placed before us for our perusal. We have carefully circumspected the true character of all these agreements and have found that the assessee is not only a builder but is also developer of the property in 18 I.T.A. No. 1239/Mds/08 I.T.A. No. 1666/Mds/07 I.T.A. No. 1907/Mds/08 question and thus, she has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in section 80-IB(10) of the Act. The definition of any term or word given in other enactments cannot be imported which dealing with Income Tax matters. No parallels can be drawn, unless, it is so specifically provided in the I.T. Act itself. The assessee was not 'awarded' any works contract either by any party or State or Central Government.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 394 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

C.I.T., Punjab, Haryana, J & K, H.P. & ... vs Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. ... on 2 January, 1976

So, it was stated that for keeping line that legal possession after assessee gave full consideration and took possession of the land, the transfer as defined in section 2(47) of the Act stands completed. It was argued that the land owner after receiving the full consideration of the land did not spend even a pie towards its developmental activities. The main thrust of the assessee's case is that the character of transaction has to be taken into consideration irrespective of the fact in whose name transaction was given as it would not necessarily decide the nature of transaction as was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Motor & General 4 I.T.A. No. 1239/Mds/08 I.T.A. No. 1666/Mds/07 I.T.A. No. 1907/Mds/08 Stores (P) Ltd. reported in 66 ITR 692 (SC). The case of the assessee is that it is the substance or essence of a transaction which in fact decides the character of the transaction rather than its form as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Panipet Woollen Mills reported in 103 ITR 66. On the contrary, the case of the A.O. is that since the assessee is not the owner of the land, she has not developed the property and has acted only as a works- contractor, therefore, as per Explanation appended to section 80- IB(10) of the Act this deduction is not admissible to her.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 173 - S M Ali - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay Etc vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 27 May, 1997

The definition as given in that Act does not make any distinction based on as to who carries on the construction activity. Thus under that Act, even the owner of the land can be treated as carrying on a works contract if he enters into an agreement to construct for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration. Therefore, the ratio of that decision cannot at all be applied to the facts of the given case which is under Income-tax Act. Rather this decision supports the case of the assessee in which the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT v. Podar Cement Ltd. reported in (1992) 5 SCC 482 and Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1999) 7 SCC 106, have been discussed and in which it has been held that in the context of Income-
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 654 - K Venkataswami - Full Document
1