CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF)

207 ITR 148High Court1994#5110 most cited

What is CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) authority for?

A person is considered to be 'holding' property for the purpose of capital gains tax if they possess it as an owner, lessee, mortgagee, or under an agreement for sale, not solely as the legal owner.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) · 207 ITR 148 · section 2(42A) · holding property · owner · lessee · mortgagee · agreement for sale · capital gains tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234Section 270ASection 54Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

transferdocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF)

ITO 5(2)4), Mumbai vs. P.M. Rungta (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7955/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito 5(2)(4) P.M. Rungta (Huf). 66 Ali R.No.571, Chambers, Tamarind Lane, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400023 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aafhp2630C Revenue By Shri Somnath Ukkal (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Nitesh Joshi (Ar)

Section 143(3)

…es ownership, but also title or right of a tenant, which will mean actual possession of the land and a right to hold the same and claim possession thereof as a tenant”. 6.5. Similarly, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148 further explained the meaning of this expression as under:— “As is clear from a bare reading of Section 2(42A) of the Act, the word "owner" has designedly not been used by the Legislature. The word "hold", as per dictionary meaning, means to possess, be the owner, holder or tenant of (property, stock, land.). Thus, a person can be said to be hol…

CIT vs. Frick India Ltd

ITA - 146 / 2002HC Delhi02 Sept 2014
Section 116Section 260A

…ining rights of a rank trespasser in the present decision and we express no opinion in that regard). 13. The Tribunal in our opinion has rightly relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT versus Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF), (1994) 207 ITR 148 (P&H) in which it has been held as under:- “As is clear from a bare reading of Section 2(42A) of the Act, the word "owner" has designedly not been used by the Legislature. The word "hold", as per 2014:DHC:4343-DB ITA 146/2002 Page 9 of 10 dictionary meaning, means to…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Frick India Ltd

ITA/146/2002HC Delhi02 Sept 2014
Section 116Section 260A

…ining rights of a rank trespasser in the present decision and we express no opinion in that regard). 13. The Tribunal in our opinion has rightly relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT versus Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF), (1994) 207 ITR 148 (P&H) in which it has been held as under:- “As is clear from a bare reading of Section 2(42A) of the Act, the word "owner" has designedly not been used by the Legislature. The word "hold", as per 2014:DHC:4343-DB ITA 146/2002 Page 9 of 10 dictionary meaning, means to…