Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Mrs. Arundhati Balkrishna vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 March, 1989
In support of this view, she relied upon sections 27 and 49 of Indian Registration Act and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Arundhati Balkrishna v. CIT (1982) 138 ITR 245 and decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in C. Vedachala Mudaliar v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR (AT) 18. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.
C. Vedachala Mudaliar And ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 27 December, 1991
In support of this view, she relied upon sections 27 and 49 of Indian Registration Act and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Arundhati Balkrishna v. CIT (1982) 138 ITR 245 and decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in C. Vedachala Mudaliar v. ITO (1992) 198 ITR (AT) 18. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ram Saran Lall And Others vs Mst. Domini Kuer And Others on 27 April, 1961
The Honble Supreme Court has distinguished its earlier decision in the case of Rani Saran Lall (supra) relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative. Thus, following the latest decision of the Supreme Court on the issue, we concur with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and decline to interfere.
Hamda Ammal vs Avadiappa Pathar And 3 Others on 7 November, 1990
In Hamda Ammals case (supra) the Honble Supreme Court while interpreting section 47 of Registration Act, 1908 has held "Documents after its registration relates back to date of execution of sale deed".
State Of U.P. And Others Etc vs L.J. Johnson And Another, Etc on 8 September, 1983
2. Shri G.G. Kawale, father of the assessee purchased a plot measuring 6089 sq.ft. in 1966 for Rs. 4,000. The said plot was reserved by the State Government for School from 1966 to 1981 and for Garden from 1982 to February, 1987. Shri G.G. Kawale sold this plot to the assessee on 23-9-1985 on executing a sale deed for cash consideration of Rs. 25,000 (while the plot was still under reservation for garden). The sale deed on a stamp paper was presented to the Registrar on the same day, i.e. 23-9-1985. The Registrar demanded NOC under section 26 of ULC Act, 1976. The assessee argued with him that the land being reserved for garden was non-vacant land according to clear meaning of section 2(q) of ULC Act, 1976 as well as the Supreme Court decision in State of UP v. L.J. Johnson AIR 1983 SC 1803. The Registrar accepted the document on that day by agreeing to the contentions of the assessee.
Section 47 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
1