Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.22 seconds)Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981
It
was around this background that Hon'ble Court by
placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of CIT vs. B. C. Srinivasan Setty
(supra), held that earmarking item wise cost was not
possible and therefore even though section 45 was
applicable to the facts of the case, the computation
provision could not be applied.
The Gift-Tax Act, 1958
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Kay Arr Enterprises on 6 July, 2007
9. CIT vs. Kay Arr Enterprises [2008] 299 ITR 348 (Madras)
Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii vs Bankim Jayantilal Shah (Huf) - ... on 21 February, 2012
10. CIT vs. R. Jayanthi (HUF) SLP (C) No. 9079/2008
C.I.T.,Mysore vs T.Ahobala Rao (Huf) on 29 October, 2014
· In the SLP decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court filed by the
revenue against the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court
in the case of CIT vs R.Jayanti (HUF) (supra) it was held that
transfer of shares by way of family arrangement would not
attract capital gains tax as the arrangement was to avoid
possible litigation amongst family members and was made
voluntarily and was not induced by fraud or coercion.
Continental Construction Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central-1 on 15 January, 1992
· While dealing with the decision in the case of PNB
finance Ltd vs CIT (supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the question considered was whether transfer of
banking undertaking on nationalisation the amount
received as compensation gave rise to taxable capital
gains under section 45 of the Act or not.