S. 2(14)(iii)(b): To determine whether the "agricultural land" is situated within 8 km of the municipal limits so as to constitute a "capital asset", the distance has to be measured in terms of the approach road and not by the straight line distance on horizontal plane or as per crow's flight
The Court is of the view that for the purposes of Section 2 (14) (iii) (b) of the Income-tax Act, the distance had to be measured from the agricultural land in question to the outer limit of the municipality by road and not by the straight line or the aerial route. The distance has to be measured from the land in question itself and not from the village in which the land is situated
CIT vs. Vijay Singh Kadan (Delhi High Court)
| COURT: | Delhi High Court |
| CORAM: | S. Muralidhar J, Vibhu Bakhru J |
| SECTION(S): | 2(14) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | capital gains, long-term capital asset |
| COUNSEL: | Piyush Kaushik |
| DATE: | September 14, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 28, 2015 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2006-07 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 2(14)(iii)(b): To determine whether the "agricultural land" is situated within 8 km of the municipal limits so as to constitute a "capital asset", the distance has to be measured in terms of the approach road and not by the straight line distance on horizontal plane or as per crow's flight | |
(i) The presumption of the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) that the 'area' means the village in which such land is situated is without any basis. In fact, the correct interpretation of the word 'in any area within such distance not being more than 8 Kms. from the local limits of any municipality' would mean the land should be within such area which is not more than 8 Kms. from the local limit of the municipality.
(ii) The Court is of the view that for the purposes of Section 2 (14) (iii) (b) of the Income-tax Act, the distance had to be measured from the agricultural land in question to the outer limit of the municipality by road and not by the straight line or the aerial route. The distance has to be measured from the land in question itself and not from the village in which the land is situated.
Related Judgements
- M/s Vijay Veer Singh vs. ITO (ITAT Agra) The Tribunal had to consider whether disallowances for payments in respect of remuneration and interest on capital paid to the partners, in computation of taxable income of the firm, can be made under section 184(5) when even though assessment is…Read more ›
- Smt. Supriya Kanwar vs. ITO (ITAT Jodhpur – Third Member) Law laid down on when an isolated transaction can be regarded as an "adventure in the nature of trade" and the taxability of agricultural land situate beyond municipal limits(ii) As regards Q. 2 (which would apply even if the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade),…
- DCIT vs. M. Kalyan Chakravarthy (ITAT Hyderabad) The only reason the A.O. treated the land as non-agricultural land was that 'agreement of sale' read with 'Irrevocable GPA' does not indicate that land retained the character of agriculture at the time of transfer. This was also the ground…Read more ›
- Manpreet Singh vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) The true test is whether the space rented out is part of the building or land appurtenant thereto. The rent is not for the antenna but for the space for installation of antenna. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the rent is for the antenna,…
- Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (Supreme Court) Unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities. Apart from…
Shabina Abraham & Ors vs. Collector of Central Excise (Supreme Court)
| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | A.K. Sikri J., Rohinton Fali Nariman J. |
| SECTION(S): | 159, Excise Act |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | Assessment, dead person |
| COUNSEL: | Rajshekar Rao |
| DATE: | July 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | September 28, 2015 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | - |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| Entire law on the taxation of deceased persons and their estate explained in the context of the Income-tax Act and the Central Excise Act | |
The Supreme Court had to consider whether a dead person's property, in the form of his or her estate, can be taxed without the necessary machinery provisions in a tax statute. The question was whether an assessment proceeding under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, can continue against the legal representatives/estate of a sole proprietor/manufacturer after he is dead. HELD by the Supreme Court:
(i) The individual assessee has ordinarily to be a living person and there can be no assessment on a dead person and the assessment is a charge in respect of the income of the previous year and not a charge in respect of the income of the year of assessment as measured by the income of the previous year. Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income-tax. By section 24B of the Income-tax Act the legal representatives have, by fiction of law, become assessees as provided in that section but that fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which it was enacted. As was observed by this Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar legal fictions are only for a definite purpose and they are limited to the purpose for which they are created and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. In the Income-tax Act the fiction is limited to the cases provided in the three sub sections of section 24B and cannot be extended further than the liability for the income received in the previous year.
(ii) A reading of Sections 2(f), (3), Section 4(3)(a), Section 11 and 11A as they stood at the relevant time would show that unlike the provisions of the Income Tax Act, there is no machinery provision in the Central Excises and Salt Act for continuing assessment proceedings against a dead individual. An assessee under the said Act means "the person" who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and further stressed the fact that in cases of short levy, such duty can only be recovered from a person who is chargeable with the duty that has been short levied. Under the Central Excise Rules and Rules 2(3) and 7 in particular, there is no machinery provision contained either in the Act or in the Rules to proceed against a dead person's legal heirs.
(Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Ellis C. Reid, A.I.R. 1931 Bombay 333, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I v. Amarchand N. Shroff, [1963] 48 I.T.R. 59 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. James Anderson, [1964] 51 I.T.R. 345 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Darabsha Nasarwanji Mehta, A.I.R. 1935 Bombay 167 referred)
Related Judgements
- Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Once the unabsorbed carried forward depreciation has become a part of the depreciation of the current year, it is not open to the assessee to bifurcate the two again and exercising its choice to claim the depreciation of the current year under Section 32(1) of the Act and take…
- Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (Surtax) 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 construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon…
- Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) We would like to take this opportunity to bring to the notice of CBDT that after the procedure of Central processing of returns, many issues have come before various forums where unnecessary demands have been raised due to non-grant of TDS, wrong computation of income, adjustment of the previous…
- State vs. Abraham Kurian (Supreme Court) (1) Tax administration is a complex subject. It consists of several aspects. The Government needs to strike a balance in the imposition of tax between collection of revenue on one hand and business-friendly approach on the other hand. (2) Exemption…Read more ›
- Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court) A reading of Section 43B after it was substituted by the Finance Act, 1988 with effect from 01.04.1989 shows that sub clause (a) in Section 43B has been considerably widened by the amendment by the addition of the words "by whatever name called". It is clear, therefore, that to
Entire law on the taxation of deceased persons and their estate explained in the context of the Income-tax Act and the Central Excise Act
The individual assessee has ordinarily to be a living person and there can be no assessment on a dead person and the assessment is a charge in respect of the income of the previous year and not a charge in respect of the income of the year of assessment as measured by the income of the previous year. Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income-tax. By section 24B of the Income-tax Act the legal representatives have, by fiction of law, become assessees as provided in that section but that fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which it was enacted
Honble Kar high court directed CBDT to consider the representation of KSCAA and issue notification by 4.30
Pm on Tuesday.
Pm on Tuesday.
Gujarat & P&C HCs hearing concluded. Judgement to be delivered at 2.30 pm.
Status of Tax Audit Date Extension Update with Different High Courts.
Rajasthan HC :- Jodhpur Bench followed Delhi HC.
Gujarat HC :- Order Reserved for 29/092015 Morning.
P&H HC :- Argument over, Order on 29/09/2015.
Karnataka HC :- Adjourned for Final Hearing on 29/09/2015.
Hyderabad HC :- Adjourned for Next Hearing on Next Week.
SEBI not 'necessary party' in capital-reduction petition, Dismisses impleadment for SCRA non-compliance
HC dismisses SEBI's impleadment application in co. petition filed by Khoday India Limited (listed company, 'Khoday') u/s 100-104 of Cos. Act, 1956 (seeking confirmation for reduction of share capital); Notes the fact that Khoday failed to achieve minimum public shareholding requirement as contemplated under Securities Contract Regulation Act ('SCRA') for which SEBI had initiated proceedings(which is now pending before SAT), holds that capital reduction petition is independent which shall not effect proceedings for non-compliance of minimum public shareholding; Relies on Bombay HC Division Bench ruling in MCX Vs SEBI, wherein it was held that sanctioning of scheme of capital reduction by u/s 391-393 read with sec. 100-103 of Cos. Act, 1956 does not preclude SEBI from determining as to whether provisions of minimum public shareholding regulations have been complied with and SEBI is independently entitled to ensure compliance as cognate legislation are not diluted; Separately, holds that sanctioning of capital reduction scheme cannot be a shield to protect itself in proceedings initiated to justify non-compliance with requirements of other regulations and states "action initiated for non-achievement of public shareholding will continue and consequence, if any, will follow"; Thus, holds that SEBI has right to proceed against the co. for not complying with SEBI Regulations, and allowing SEBI to implead themselves in instant petition would be wholly unnecessary:Karnataka HC
The order was passed by Justice A S Bopanna.
Senior Advocate S Vijayshankar, Advocate T Suryanarayana argued on behalf of Applicant (SEBI) while Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, Advocate Karan Joseph for Respondent (Khoday India Limited).
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment