ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI MAHAVEER BHANDARI, LEGAL HEIR- SMT. LALITHA BHANDARI, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the entire assessment order without discussing the merits of the case. The appeal was admitted for adjudication, indicating that the Tribunal would examine the grounds raised by the Revenue.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) related to Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and non-compete fees. The AO had added back amounts related to the fair market value of shares received in exchange for a private company and a non-compete fee, which the CIT(A) had deleted.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without discussing the merits and whether the fair market value of shares and non-compete fees were correctly assessed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Pavankumar M. Sanghvi v. ITO, Wd. 3(1)(2), Baroda23 citing81 Taxmann.com 308 · 2017 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter the “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 12.07.2024 arising out of the order dated 30.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 9(1), Chennai (hereina
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 56(2)(vii)
- Surekha Subhash Parve, Pune vs ITO Ward - 4(5), PuneITA 3137/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Hasumatiben Harkishanbhai Parmar, Surat vs ITO, Ward-2(3)(2), SuratITA 1467/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Naresh Kumar, Gurgaon, Haryana vs PCIT, JaipurITA 209/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Anwar Hussain Karam Hussain Khan, Thane vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), ThaneITA 3191/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Sopna Rani Pandhy, Uttar Pradesh vs Income Tax, Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), GhaziabadITA 6453/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026