Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income Tax,Meerut, ... vs M/S Virmani Industries Private ... on 12 October, 1995

In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Virmani Industries Pvt. Ltd. And Others reported as (1995) 216 ITR 607 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against income under any other head. Similar was also taken in the following decisions:
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 54 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 13 February, 2003

29. The first issue is with regards to year of levy of capital gain. The assessee has entered into transaction of sale in question through development agreement dated 19-3-2007 and therefore, the terms and conditions laid down under the development agreement play an important role in deciding the issue whether the transfer of land took place in previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2007-08 or that to A.Y 2008-09. However, as per clauses of the agreement it was clear that passing of or transferring of complete control over the property in favour of the developer as on the date of agreement i.e. on 19-3-2007. It is only execution of deed of conveyance which was deferred till the discharge of full consideration as per the agreement and not the transfer of 39 ITA 1568/PN/08 and 1329/PN/09 Sathe Biscuit & Chocolate A.Y. 2005-06 and 2007=08 development rights, which had taken place on the date of development agreement i.e. 19-3- 2007 and therefore, the capital gain on the transfer of property is chargeable to tax for the A.Y. 2007-08. This reasoned finding is supported by the ratio of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom) wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that once under some clause of the agreement a limited power of attorney is intended to be given to the developer to deal with the property, then the date of agreement would be the relevant date to decide the date of transfer u/s 2(47_(v) of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances, the lower authorities were justified in holding that the capital gain on sale of land is chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2007=-08 because the agreement coupled with posession took place on 19-3-2007. Same needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 223 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1