332, Syndicate Bank Ltd. vs Addl.CIT 155 ITR 681 (Kar.), Ranchodbhai B. Patel v. CIT

158 ITR 611High Court1986#22828 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing 332, Syndicate Bank Ltd. vs Addl.CIT 155 ITR 681 (Kar.), Ranchodbhai B. Patel v. CIT

Jayanti Vasishta, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 687/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Kavitha P. CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 250Section 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2014-15 Jayanti Vasishta, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A-101, AVG Park Square, Ward 4(3)(1), No.45, 2nd Cross, C.R. Layout, Bangalore. J.P. Nagar 1st Phase, Bangalore – 560 078. PAN: ADWPV 8333Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Kavitha P. CA Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 11.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 19.01.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal by the ass…

Mr. Jaiprakash A. Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 22 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1505/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, DR

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…1 (Guj.), CIT vs N.N. Mohan & Sons (2001) 250 ITR 131 (Del.), CIT vs Harbhagwan (1998) 145 CTR (P & H) 332, Syndicate Bank Ltd. vs Addl.CIT 155 ITR 681 (Kar.), Ranchodbhai B. Patel vs CIT 81 ITR 446 (Guj.), CIT vs M. Mr. Jaiprakash A. Mishra 9 Rammaiya Reddy 158 ITR 611 (Kar.), CIT vs Smt. M. Subaida Beebi 160 ITR 557 (Ker.), CIT vs Steel Group Ltd. 131 ITR 234 (Cal.), CIT vs Duncan Brothers & Company Ltd. 209 ITR 44 (Cal.), Arun Suuny vs DCIT (2009) 184 taxman 498 (Ker.) further supports the case of the assessee. Respectfully following the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Manjula J. Shah (Supr…

Subhash Ramrao Alone, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 69

…purchasers pay for them separately. 2. The sale of agricultural land has been accepted. So long as the trees are uncut they form a part of the land. (Vishnudatta Antharjanam (AKTKM) v. CIT (1971) 78 ITR 58 (SC). It is also held in CIT v. Ramaih Reddy (1986) 158 ITR 611 (Kar) that "if land with forest thereon be entirely sold in one transaction, the sales proceeds would be on capital account. But in this case since it was agricultural land with forest thereon their sale is also exempt from taxation. The appellant assessee was owner of the tree and land and trees were sold in one transaction. 3. Therefore, the s…