Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court interprets 'purchase' in tax exemption case, emphasizes actual acquisition. Notification's prospective application upheld.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka-I Versus Fibre Boards P. Ltd.</h3> The High Court held that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 54G of the Income Tax Act as the requirements of actual purchase and ... - Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for exemption under Section 54G of the Income Tax Act.2. Interpretation of the term 'purchase' under Section 54G.3. Retrospective or prospective application of the notification declaring an area as 'urban.'Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Exemption under Section 54G:The assessee, a private limited company, sought exemption under Section 54G of the Income Tax Act for capital gains earned from the sale of its industrial undertaking in an urban area (Majiwada, Thane) and intended to shift to a non-urban area (Kurukumbh, Pune). The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption on two grounds: the non-urban area was not declared as such by the Central Government, and the capital gains were not utilized as required nor deposited in the Capital Gains Scheme Account.The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, interpreting that the term 'purchase' should be construed liberally to mean spending money towards acquiring new assets, even if legal ownership had not vested. The Tribunal also considered the notification declaring Thane as an urban area to be declaratory and thus having retrospective effect.The High Court, however, disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation. It held that merely paying advances does not amount to 'purchase' or 'acquisition' as required under Section 54G. The Court emphasized that the term 'purchase' should be understood in its commercial sense, implying the actual acquisition and control over the property, not just the payment of advances.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Purchase' under Section 54G:The Court examined various dictionary meanings and legal interpretations of the term 'purchase.' It concluded that 'purchase' implies acquiring substantial interest and control over the property, not merely paying advances. The Court noted that the legislative intent behind Section 54G was to ensure the actual relocation of industrial undertakings to non-urban areas, which would not be fulfilled by mere advance payments.The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arvind Reddy, which defined 'purchase' as acquiring property for a price or equivalent, including adjustments towards debts or other monetary considerations. However, the Court distinguished this case, emphasizing that the context of Section 54G required actual acquisition and control, not just financial transactions.3. Retrospective or Prospective Application of the Notification:The notification declaring Thane as an urban area was issued in March 1994, but the assessee's transaction occurred before this date. The Tribunal considered the notification to have retrospective effect, aligning with the legislative intent to decongest urban areas.The High Court disagreed, stating that the notification was prospective, as explicitly mentioned in its text. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to apply the notification from the date of its issuance, and any retrospective application would lead to absurdity and conflict with the notification's language.The Court also referred to principles of statutory interpretation, noting that unless a statute or notification explicitly states retrospective application, it should be construed as prospective. The Court highlighted that the notification's prospective nature was clear, and any interpretation to the contrary would undermine the legislative process and lead to uncertainty.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 54G, as the requirements of actual purchase and acquisition were not met, and the notification declaring Thane as an urban area was prospective, not retrospective. The Court answered both referred questions in the negative, ruling against the assessee.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found