Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.30 seconds)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S A M Builders And Developers , ... on 6 April, 2023 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Union Co. (Motors) Pvt. Ltd. on 6 February, 2002

7(d). The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v/s Union Co Motors Pvt Ltd (283 ITR 445 (Madras) 2006) has held 'it is therefore, a settled law that even though the transaction involved land and building, once the land of the assets of the undertaking, the transfer is of the entire undertaking as a whole and it is not possible to bifurcate same, as suggested by the Assessing Officer in the instant case. All the more, in the instant case, the fact remains that the purchaser had applied for the demolition of the building and also demolished the building, which was taken into consideration by the commission and the tribunal, while arriving at a conclusion that section 50 of the Act, is not attracted, as Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is that the sale consideration made by the purchase is only for the land, since the building had no value and therefore got demolished. Finding no error in the order of the authorities below, the appeal stands discussed.' In the assessee case also, the assessee has not considered any value for the building at the time of entering into JDA with M/s Orlanda Realty Pvt. Ltd to develop the said land. Similarly, the assessee firm itself has not considered and thought of value for the existing building at the time agreement for sale and execution of sale deed with M/s Titan Company Ltd,. This is because no value is attached to the building at the time of JDA and also at the time of sale. Hence, it is evident that the sale consideration received solely for sale of land only and not to the Building. Again, in view of the decision "of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras cited above the building has no value in the assessee case at the time of JDA itself. The assessee has sold the schedule property after 6 years from JDA and therefore, there is no value for the building in view of the above decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 31 October, 1966

ix. Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) x. CIT v. Bradford Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 222 (Mad.) 5.5 The ld. A.R. submitted that if the compensation was not paid, then the assessee could not have sold the property to M/s. Titan Company Ltd. The compensation paid paved an easy path for the assessee to enable the transfer of the property to its desired purchaser. It was an obligation cast on the assessee to ensure that the property transferred is free of encumbrance and transfer a good title to the purchaser. Therefore, the amounts paid towards the cancellation of the agreements were essential for the transfer is wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with the transfer of property and consequently, the same is required to be allowed as cost as per the provisions of section 48 of the Act. In so far as the submission of the learned Department representative is concerned, the ld. A.R. submitted that the authorities filed are in respect of encumbrance created by way of mortgage, which is not the case of the respondent assessee and thus is not applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 102 - V Bhargava - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S.Bradford Trading Company (P) Ltd on 18 September, 2002

ix. Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC) x. CIT v. Bradford Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 222 (Mad.) 5.5 The ld. A.R. submitted that if the compensation was not paid, then the assessee could not have sold the property to M/s. Titan Company Ltd. The compensation paid paved an easy path for the assessee to enable the transfer of the property to its desired purchaser. It was an obligation cast on the assessee to ensure that the property transferred is free of encumbrance and transfer a good title to the purchaser. Therefore, the amounts paid towards the cancellation of the agreements were essential for the transfer is wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with the transfer of property and consequently, the same is required to be allowed as cost as per the provisions of section 48 of the Act. In so far as the submission of the learned Department representative is concerned, the ld. A.R. submitted that the authorities filed are in respect of encumbrance created by way of mortgage, which is not the case of the respondent assessee and thus is not applicable.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 19 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next