1998) 231 ITR 1 and Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri v. Union of India & Anr.

286 ITR 428High Court2006#20403 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing 1998) 231 ITR 1 and Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri v. Union of India & Anr.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5986/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…at as it was an event subsequent to closing of the accounts, same should be allowed to be reduced from book profits. Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri vs. UOI [286 ITR 428] wherein it has been held that Revenue Department must consider subsequent events. He also relied on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd [59 taxmann.com 43] wherein it was held that no disallowance of actual expenditure while computing book profits just because it was shown as deferred revenu…

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

ITA 2330/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar &
Section 54F

…irrelevant. What is material is that this transfer fee is paid for the purposes of acquisition of the new house by the assessee and thus, it is a part of the cost of the house. Lastly, reliance was placed on Bombay H.C. decision in the case of Sushila Zaveri [286 ITR 428] wherein the court has held that subsequent events till the stage of decision must be considered by an authority. In view of these facts, it was submitted that the assessee is justified in making the above claim of transfer fee u/s. 54F.” 12.2 On considering the newly filed documents which were not existed at the relevant point of time, we are o…

ANAND R. AGRAWAL,THANE vs. ACIT CIR 2, THANE

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Anand Ramprasad Agarwal Acit—2 Ground Floor, Vrindavan, Vs. Room No. 27, 6Th Salasar Brijbhoomi, Temba Floor, B-Wing, Ashar Hospital Road, Bhayander West, It Park, Near Thane-401101 Ambika Nagar, Waghle Industrial Estate Road No. 16-Z Thane(W)-400604 Pan No. Ahopa8973F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Radhika Anand Agarwal Acit—2 3, “Giriraj Building”, Vs. Room No. 27, 6Th Salasarbrijboomi, Near Maxus Floor, B-Wing, Ashar Mall,Bhayander West, It Park, Near Thane-401101 Ambika Nagar, Waghle Industrial Estate Road No. 16-Z Thane(W)-400604 Pan No. Aejpa8140C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Sudha Ramprasad Agarwal Acit—2 Ground Floor, Vrindavan, Vs. Room No. 27, 6Th Salasar Brijbhoomi, Temba Floor, B-Wing, Ashar Hospital Road, Bhayander West, It Park, Near Thane-401101 Ambika Nagar, Waghle Industrial Estate Road No. 16-Z Thane(W)-400604 Pan No. Aaopa2404N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Kumar, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…d as they are essential for determining the allowablity of deduction u/s 54 to the assessee and as they go into root of the matter. The same could not be produced before the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO. He places reliance on Sushila Shanitlal Jhaveri vs. UoI (2006) 286 ITR 428; Smt. Prabhavati Shah vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom) and Abhay Kumar 63 ITD 144 (Pat.) (TM) . 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposes the admission of additional evidence. It is stated by him that the assessee could have produced the evidence that is the vital and important before the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). Having failed to do so, the assessee should n…

INDRAKUMAR PATODIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 4275/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Shri Indra Kumar Patodia, Income Tax Officer 24(2)(4), Residing At B/1206, Marine Lines, Abrol Vastu Park, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064 Pan: Aacpp 1552E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B.C.S. Naik, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement :03 .02.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 1998-99 Shri Indra Kumar Patodia, Income Tax Officer 24(2)(4), Residing at B/1206, Marine Lines, Abrol Vastu Park, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064 PAN: AACPP 1552E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri B.C.S. Naik, D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement :03 .02.2016 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been pref…

1998) 231 ITR 1 and Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri v. Union of India & Anr. (286 ITR 428) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax