120TTJ 1001 (JP); 2. Dy. CIT v. Jaipur Manglam Arts

124 ITD 71Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#11024 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing 120TTJ 1001 (JP); 2. Dy. CIT v. Jaipur Manglam Arts

Mr. Subhash Hari Gode, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1708/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1708/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2015-16) Mr. Subhash Hari Gode बिधम/ Ito, Ward -2(4) Sakhroli Post Atgaon Tal- Kalyan. Vs. Shahapura Dist- Thane- 421301. Pan No: Bllpg0668M

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 2(14)

…s been claimed exempt and allowed as such by the Revenue in the earlier years. In support of his arguments, learned AR relied on the following decisions: Nandial Agrawal [ITA 2534/AHD/2015] Mr. S.H. MohamedNowfel [ITA 435/Chny/2019] Sarnath Infra Pvt Ltd (124 ITD 71 (Lucknow)] Warniks Park Pvt Ltd. [41 taxmann.com 109 (Hyderabad Tribunal)} Smt. Bilkishbai (225 ITR 570 (MP)] K.P.R, Developers Ltd [117 taxmann.com 822 (Madras)} The learned AR therefore, pleaded that profit on sale of agricultural land is wrongly treated by the AO as the business income instead of the exempt income u/s 2(14) of the Act and,…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shah Investors Home Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2312/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri H. V. Gandhi, A.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

…ecided the issue in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 188 Taxman 140 Gujarat High court in the case of CIT Vs. Rewashanker A Kothari 283 ITR 338 Sarnath Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 124 ITD 71 (LUK) and CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007 and stated that:- “6.6 I have also seen the submission furnished by the AR of the Appellant. I completely agree with the arguments of the AR of the Appellant that the AO is not justified in treating Capital Gain as Business income. ITA Nos. 2312 & 2313/Ahd/2017 6 & C.O. Nos. 08 & 09/Ah…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shah Investors Home Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

ITA 3316/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 36(2)Section 40

…ecided the issue in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 188 Taxman 140 Gujarat High court in the case of CIT Vs. Rewashanker A Kothari 283 ITR 338 Sarnath Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 124 ITD 71 (LUK) and CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007 and stated that:- “6.6 I have also seen the submission furnished by the AR of the Appellant. I completely agree with the arguments of the AR of the Appellant that the AO is not justified in treating Capital Gain as Business income. I.T.A No. 3316/Ahd/2015 & CO No. 8/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5845/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133(6)

…r Aggarwal & Bros. [1994] 205 ITR 251/[1993] 71 Taxman 510 (SC).The various authorities have laid down certain guidelines on the basis of which the intention of the assessee can be inferred. In the case of Sarnath Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 124 ITD 71 (Luck.), the ITAT culled out various parameters, which may be applied to determine whether the transaction of purchase and sale of share is in the nature of trade or investment. The relevant observations of the ITAT read as under: "The following principles can be applied on the facts of a case to find out whether transaction(s) in question are in…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Rajesh D Nandu (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1721/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1721/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sanghavi
Section 143(2)Section 14A

…No. 799/Mum/2010, A.Y. 2005-06, dated 24-11-10). 6. Management Structure & System Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO (ITA No. 6966/Mum/2007, dated 30-04-10). 7. Smt. Sadhana Nabera v/s ACIT (ITA No.2566/Mum/2009, dated 26-3-10) 8. Sarnath Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v/s ACIT 124 ITD 71 (Luck.). 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by the lower authorities and after considering the same, we found that since the ld. CIT(A) has based his entire findings by passing a reasoned and speaking order and also by taking into consideration…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Art Beauty Exports, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 924/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2531/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.A.No.5702/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 I.T.A.No.5703/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Art Beauty Export, vs ITO, Ward-31(1), C/o Rajiv Saxena & Co. New Delhi. (Advocates & Solicitors). 318, Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar-II, New Delhi. (PAN: AABFA1767B) I.T.A.No.924/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 ITO, Ward-31(1), vs Art Beauty Expo…

M/S. Arts Beauty Exports, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2531/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.A.No.5702/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 I.T.A.No.5703/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Art Beauty Export, vs ITO, Ward-31(1), C/o Rajiv Saxena & Co. New Delhi. (Advocates & Solicitors). 318, Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar-II, New Delhi. (PAN: AABFA1767B) I.T.A.No.924/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 ITO, Ward-31(1), vs Art Beauty Expo…

M/S. Arts Beauty Exports, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5702/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2531/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.A.No.5702/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 I.T.A.No.5703/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Art Beauty Export, vs ITO, Ward-31(1), C/o Rajiv Saxena & Co. New Delhi. (Advocates & Solicitors). 318, Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar-II, New Delhi. (PAN: AABFA1767B) I.T.A.No.924/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 ITO, Ward-31(1), vs Art Beauty Expo…

M/S. Art Beauty Export, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2531/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2531/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.A.No.5702/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 I.T.A.No.5703/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Art Beauty Export, vs ITO, Ward-31(1), C/o Rajiv Saxena & Co. New Delhi. (Advocates & Solicitors). 318, Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar-II, New Delhi. (PAN: AABFA1767B) I.T.A.No.924/Del/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 ITO, Ward-31(1), vs Art Beauty Expo…

120TTJ 1001 (JP); 2. Dy. CIT v. Jaipur Manglam Arts (124 ITD 71) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax