228 (Kar); (iii) CIT v. Dr. Arvind S. Phake

401 ITR 96High Court2018#20784 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 45(2)Section 50CSection 54ECSection 54F

Judgments citing 228 (Kar); (iii) CIT v. Dr. Arvind S. Phake

Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2443/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 263Section 50CSection 54ESection 54F

…cceed. Thus, this Ground of appeal is allowed. 10.2 Therefore, we are of the opinion that Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.54EC of the Act. We find support from the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dr.Arvind S. Phake [2018] 401 ITR 96(BOM) and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr.(Smt) Sujatha Ramesh vs. CBDT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 228(KAR). Accordingly, Ground No.6, 7 and 8 raised by the Assessee are allowed. 10.3 Ground No.9 is general in nature. No ground was added, amended, altered. Accordingly, Ground No.9 is dismissed. ITA No.2443/PUN/2024 [A] 11. To sum up, a…

Sruthi Riedl, Hyderabad vs. ITO, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad

ITA 126/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sruthi Riedl, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Vs. (International [Pan No. Aggpp6953R] Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Ar /Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा सुनवाई ई की तारीखीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीखीख/Pronouncement On: 08/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(47)

…hus, the second developer acted in furtherance of the project and spent: 2015-16 F.Y - Rs. 17.95 Cr. 2016-17 F.Y— Rs. 33.85 Cr. 14.7. Ld A.O Relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases: A. Balbir Singh maini - 395 ITR B. CIT Vs Dr. Aravind S. Dhadke —401 ITR 96 (Born) C. Various other cases as listed in the assessment order. Thus, the possession of land was given-to the second Developer after entering into JDA dated 10.02.2016. 15.Submissions of Appellant of on merits:- 16.1. No transfer of land took place U/s 2(47) in A.Y-2016-17. 16.2. No physical possession of land was given by the appellant to the se…

Smt. Kiran Kamra, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4904/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Kiran Kamra, Vs. Ito, 2286, Hudson Line, Ward-36(1), G.T.B. Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaqpk8729C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 54Section 54E

…six months. He also relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Cello Plast, (2012) 24 taxmann.com 111 (Bom.); (ii) Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi (2017) 87 taxmann.com 228 (Kar); (iii) CIT vs. Dr. Arvind S. Phake, 401 ITR 96 (Bom); and (iv) Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2010) 325 ITR 102 (Bom). 8. Relying on various other decisions, he submitted that various courts and Tribunals are taking a liberal view for granting exemption u/s 54EC where the respective assessees have invested in the specific bonds beyond the period of six months. He accordingly submitted tha…

Vijay Alloys P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2699/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalvijay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 12, Happy Home, 244, Waterfield Road ……………. Appellant Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan – Aaacv2951J

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)

…itions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, have not been fulfilled, it cannot constitute a transfer under section 2(47)(v) of the Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Arvind S. Phake, [2018] 401 ITR 96 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Shri Sadia Seikh, Tax Appeal no.11 and 12 of 2013, dated 02.12.2013; iii) ACIT v/s Jawaharlal L. Agicha (2011) 161 ITD 429 (Mum.); and iv) CIT v/s Geeta Devi Pasari, [2009] 17 DTR (Bom.) 280. 11. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (App…

228 (Kar); (iii) CIT v. Dr. Arvind S. Phake (401 ITR 96) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax