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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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>Assessee loses property exemption due to ownership ruling on Jor Bagh property transfer</h1> <h3>VD. M. RM. M. RM. Muthiah Chettiar. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.</h3> VD. M. RM. M. RM. Muthiah Chettiar. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax. - ITD 056, 232, Issues Involved:1. Exemption Claim under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Ownership of Residential Property at Jor Bagh.3. Distribution of Estate under the Will.4. Applicability of Section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.5. Legal Implications of Mutation in Property Records.Issue 1: Exemption Claim under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961The primary issue revolves around the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which pertains to capital gains from the sale of shares. The assessee sold shares for Rs. 21,71,680, resulting in a capital gain of Rs. 21,48,680. The assessee then invested in a house property in New Friends Colony, jointly with her daughter, for Rs. 80 lakhs. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the exemption claim because the assessee was deemed to own another residential property at Jor Bagh, which disqualified her from the exemption under Section 54F.Issue 2: Ownership of Residential Property at Jor BaghThe AO's decision was based on the fact that the assessee was the owner of another residential property at Jor Bagh. This was supported by income-tax and wealth-tax returns and the will of Mrs. S.D. Puri, which bequeathed a share of the Jor Bagh property to the assessee. The assessee argued that she was not the legal owner since the mutation of the property had not been done by the Land and Development Office (L&DO) authorities. The Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed her 1/4th share in the Jor Bagh property in her wealth-tax returns and had stated on oath that her husband was a co-owner of the property. This indicated that the property had been distributed among the legatees, making the assessee the owner.Issue 3: Distribution of Estate under the WillThe will of Mrs. S.D. Puri directed the distribution of her property, including the Jor Bagh property, among specific legatees. The Tribunal examined whether the administration of the estate had been completed and whether the property had been distributed. The Tribunal found that everything required for the distribution of assets had been done, and the rent was being collected by the co-owners, not by the executor as an administrator. The Tribunal concluded that the distribution of the Jor Bagh property had been completed, and the assessee was the owner of the property.Issue 4: Applicability of Section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961The assessee argued that the assessment of the Jor Bagh property should be made in the hands of the executors under Section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, until the property was distributed among the legatees. The Tribunal found that the administration of the estate had been completed, and the property had been distributed among the legatees. Therefore, the provisions of Section 168 were not applicable, and the income from the property was assessable in the hands of the legatees.Issue 5: Legal Implications of Mutation in Property RecordsThe assessee contended that mutation in the L&DO records was necessary for her to be considered the legal owner of the Jor Bagh property. The Tribunal rejected this contention, stating that the assent of the executor to the legacy, whether express or implied, was sufficient to transfer the property to the legatees. The mutation in the L&DO records was not essential for the assessee to become the owner of the property. The Tribunal emphasized that the legal title of the property vested in the legatees upon the assent of the executor and related back to the date of the testator's death.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee, concluding that the assessee was the owner of the Jor Bagh property when she purchased the property at New Friends Colony and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found