Explore the legal implications of extinguishment of property rights in the CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani case at the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Uncover the details of the dispute, the compromise, and the tax implications. Understand the court’s ruling on whether the amount of Rs. 7,34,000 is considered a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax, as per Section 2(47) of the IT Act. Stay informed on the legal precedents cited, including the Bombay High Court decisions and the Supreme Court’s stance on property rights extinguishment.
The assessee filed the return showing the taxable income of Rs. 33,570 on December 31, 1993. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee sold residential property for Rs. 60. lakhs. It was jointly owned by the assessee and Mrs. Prema P. Shah. It was purchased for Rs. 14.00 lakhs on March 29, 1983, and sold on April 4, 1992, for the aforementioned price.
Whether the obligation to register a transfer of shares within a particular period of time was mandatory or directory? Whether the company can cancel or reject the transfer where stamps on transfer form were not defaced or canceled?
Amounts were collected as per the directions given by the Molasses Control (Amendment) Order, it goes to the molasses storage fund over which the assessed has no control and domain. Inasmuch as the assessed cannot utilise the same for its own business purpose, we have also here to hold that there is diversion by overriding title at the source itself
Time barred Excise duty Refund claim paid Protest buyer manufacturer
As per the provisions of section 210(5), if an assessee, who receives an order under sub-section (3) or (4) of section 210, feels that his current income would be less than the amount on which advance tax has been demanded, vide such order, he can send an intimation in Form No. 28A to the Assessing Officer and pay advance tax as per his own estimate.
In spite of the enunciation of law in ACC, Entry 25 has not stood revived or restored into the Sixth Schedule of the Act. Therefore the Authorities under the Act cannot levy tax under the Act in regard to transfer of property in goods involved in processing photo negatives and supplying of photo prints and photographs, as if Entry 25 has stood restored in the Sixth Schedule to the Act.
The law is well settled that a person who claims exemption or concession has to establish that he is entitled to that exemption or concession. A provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be constructed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on which the provisions has been placed in the statue and the object and purpose to be achieved.
The only dispute in the present appeals is as to whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)( i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the income from the investment of rupees two crores in the purchase of 13.5 per cent. PSEB Bonds, 2003 First Series on September 20, 1993.
Explore the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala (Appeal 1899/2002) dated 10/12/2002. Delve into the legal intricacies surrounding the assignment of income, diversion by overriding title, and the impact on taxation. Gain insights into the arguments presented, court decisions, and the broader implications of this significant case in tax law.
