Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.45 seconds)Section 2 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
S. Harnam Singh Suri vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 20 May, 1983
In the case before us, there being no controversy, to the assessee's claim that he did not let out the Bombay flat nor parted with its possession in any manner and that he used it as and when at Bombay, we follow this Tribunal's decision in Smt. D. Rani's case (supra) which is supported by the view, taken by the Delhi High Court in S. Harnam Singh Suri's case (supra) and the Karnataka High Court in M. Abdul Sattar's case (supra) to say that the Bombay flat was being used by the assessee in the two years immediately preceding its sale, within the meaning and for the benefit of the provisions of Section 54.
Abdul Sattar M. Mokashi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 August, 1988
In the case before us, there being no controversy, to the assessee's claim that he did not let out the Bombay flat nor parted with its possession in any manner and that he used it as and when at Bombay, we follow this Tribunal's decision in Smt. D. Rani's case (supra) which is supported by the view, taken by the Delhi High Court in S. Harnam Singh Suri's case (supra) and the Karnataka High Court in M. Abdul Sattar's case (supra) to say that the Bombay flat was being used by the assessee in the two years immediately preceding its sale, within the meaning and for the benefit of the provisions of Section 54.
Sri Rajaram vs Income-Tax Officer on 17 July, 1986
16. As against this, Shri K.K. Viswanatham, learned departmental representative, contended that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan's case (supra) and a recent decision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in Chander Mohan's case (supra) the view taken by this Tribunal in Rajaram's case (supra) could no longer said to be good.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs T.N. Aravinda Reddy on 1 February, 1978
In fact, the Supreme Court in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46, held that acquisition through release from other co-owners amounted to purchase within the meaning of Section 54(1), and found no reason to divorce the meaning of the word 'purchase' as buying for a price or the equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards old debt or for other monetary consideration, from the legal meaning of that word in Section 54(1). Further, the Supreme Court observed that there was no stress in the section on 'cash and carry'. In view of this, the date of the agreement of purchase should be taken as the date of purchase for purposes of Section 54. Also even though the major part of the consideration had not been paid within a period of one year the assessee was not disentitled from exemption, because there was nothing in Section 54 to suggest that the consideration should be paid in cash within one year. To conclude, the term 'purchase' should be construed liberally in terms of the dicta of the Supreme Court in the case cited (supra) and the date of agreement of purchase should be taken as the date of purchase even though conveyance was given after expiry of one year from the date of sale of residential flat, and the mere fact that the major part of the consideration was paid after the expiry of one year would not disentitle the assessee from exemption under Section 54. Accordingly the order of the Commissioner was vacated.
M. Viswanathan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 March, 1978
It may also be stated that the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in Viswanathan's case (supra) was very much taken note of by the Tribunal but following a case decided by the High Court of Delhi in S. Harnam Singh Suri's case (supra) and holding that where a taxing provision is ambiguous or capable of more meaning than one, the interpretation which is beneficial to the subject must be adopted, the Delhi view was preferred.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shahzadi Begum Alias Luthfunnisa Begum ... on 26 September, 1951
15. This case, on a, reference has since been affirmed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397.