Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.33 seconds)Section 45 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.R. Subramanya Bhat on 9 June, 1986
"The question for consideration is whether exemption on capital gains
could be refused to the assessee simply on the ground that the
construction of the Surya Nagar, Agra house, had begun before the
sale of the Link house. Similar question came up for consideration
before the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. J. R.
Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571. In the case before the
Karnataka High Court, the date of the sale of the old building was
February 9, 1977. The completion of the construction of the new
building was in March, 1977, although the commencement of
construction started in 1976. On these facts, the Karnataka High
Court held that it was immaterial that the construction of the new
building was started before the sale of the old building. We fully agree
with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court. The Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that capital gains arising from the sale
of the Golf Link house to the extent it got invested in the construction
of the Surya Nagar house, will be exempted under section 54 of the
Act."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs H.K. Kapoor (Decd.) (Through Legal Heir ... on 12 August, 1997
7. The aforesaid judgment was pronounced on 9th June, 1986 and
was followed by Allahabad High Court in H.K. Kapoor (supra) and it
has been held as under:--
Commissioner Of Income Tax - Xv vs Bharti Mishra on 18 December, 2013
The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Bharti Mishra
(supra) has held as under:-
C.Aryama Sundaram, Chennai vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 December, 2011
In this regard it would be also important to quote once again the
following from the operative portion of decision of Madras High Court in
the case of C.Aryama Sundaram Vs CIT dated 06/08/18 (supra) as
under:
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Kuldeep Singh S/O Sri Arjun Singh on 27 November, 2006
8. The 1st question has been answered by the honourable Delhi High Court in
case of CIT vs Kuldeep Singh in [2014] 49 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi)/[2014]
226 Taxman 133 (Delhi)/[2014] 270 CTR 561 (Delhi) wherein the
honourable High Court has held as under:-
Arasmeta Captive Power Co. Pvt. Ltd & An vs Lafarge India P. Ltd on 12 December, 2013
10. The Supreme Court recently in Civil Appeal No. 11003/2013,
Arasmeta Captive Power Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Lafarge India (P.) Ltd.,
decided on 12th December, 2013 has observed as under:
Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs A.P.Jaiswal & Ors on 6 December, 2000
In Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. A.P Jaiswal and
others, a three-judge bench has observed thus:
Chloro Controls(I) P.Ltd vs Severn Trent Water Purification Inc ... on 28 September, 2012
3. We have commenced our opinion with the aforesaid exposition of
law as arguments have been canvassed by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned
senior counsel for the appellants, with innovative intellectual
animation of how a three- Judge Bench in Chloro Controls India (P.)
Ltd. v. Seven Trent Water Purification Inc. [2013] 1 SCC 641 has
inappositely and incorrectly understood the principles stated in the
major part of the decision rendered by a larger bench in SBP &
Page | 14
Kapil Kumar Agarwal Vs DCIT
ITA No. 2630/Del/2015
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd [2005] 8 SCC 618 and, in
resistance, Mr. Harish Salve amd Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior
counsel for the respondent, while defending the view expressed later
by the three- Judge Bench, have laid immense emphasis on
consistency and certainty of law that garner public confidence,
especially in the field of arbitration, regard being had to the
globalization of economy and stability of the jurisprudential concepts
and pragmatic process of arbitration that sparkles the soul of
commercial progress. We make it clear that we are not writing the
grammar of arbitration but indubitably we intend, and we shall, in
course of our delineation, endeavour to clear the maze, so that
certainty remains "A Definite" and finality is 'Final'.'
The aforesaid observations are equally, if not more important and
relevant to tax matters.