Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.23 seconds)
Rajendra Pathak , Udaipur vs Assessee on 11 August, 2015 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs F.Y. Khambaty on 18 October, 1985

CIT vs. F.Y. Khambaty (1986) 159 ITR 203 (Bombay) The ld. A/R concluded that in view of the above the shares were beneficially and in substance owned by the assessee himself, the assessee is undisputedly non-resident, the transfer has taken place outside India and the capital gain had arisen and accrued out of India, the sale consideration was also received by the assessee through his agent out of India, the shares, since owned by the assessee himself, the income cannot arise in the hands of resident wife of the assessee and, therefore, provisions of section 64 and Section 5 would have no application.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Abhay Kumar Shroff vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 June, 1997

10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is found that these documents were not submitted before the lower authorities at the time of assessment and appellate proceedings. It is fact that assessee is residing outside India and is a non-resident. Whatever evidences filed along with the prayer go to the root of the cause, we consider that these documents are required to be filed and to be considered for disposal of this appeal. The case law referred by the assessee i.e. Abhay Kumar Shroof vs. ITO (supra) is squarely applicable and as per ITAT Rule 29, we allow this prayer of the assessee along with the additional evidences.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna Cites 22 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Mohan Singh Oberoi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 29 November, 1972

11.3. The ld. A/R also submitted that once it is established that the consideration was paid by the assessee then the assessee is the real owner. Allotment of shares was to the assessee employee for acknowledging his employment contribution. This was not a transaction of purchase of shares from open market. Under the Long Term Incentive Plan Scheme the entitlement was for employee only. For all purposes and intent, the assessee was owner of share and in the note attached with the return of income, it is clearly mentioned that shares were sold by the assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rai Bahadur Mohan Singh Oberoi v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 53 (SC) had an occasion to consider the taxability of dividend in respect of shares in the name of wife and sons 21 ITA NO. 53/JP/2012 A.Y. 2008-09.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 22 - H R Khanna - Full Document
1   2 3 Next