ACTI v. N.Raghu Varma

142 ITD 421Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#13455 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing ACTI v. N.Raghu Varma

ANIL KUMAR NUWAL,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 290/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainanil Kumar Nuwal, Vs A.C.I.T., 9, Main Sector, Shastri Circle- Bhilwara. Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan- 311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aavpn 4375 L

For Appellant: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble
Section 143(3)Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Anil Kumar Nuwal, Vs A.C.I.T., 9, Main Sector, Shastri Circle- Bhilwara. Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan- 311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAVPN 4375 L Assessee By Shri Avdhesh Singhvi (CA) Revenue By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav (JCIT-DR) Date of hearing 19/03/2020 Date of 20/03/2020 Pronouncement O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 15/07/2019 for the assessment year 2016…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESH L. POLRA,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2320/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 54BSection 69Section 69A

…Ramesh Laljibhai Polra v. DCIT, Cen. Cir-2, Surat /I.T.A. No’s 2320 & 2290/AHD/2016/A.Y.2013-14 Page 1 of 26 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/AHD/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [PAN: ADLPP 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner of Income G…

SHRI RAMESH LALJIBHAI POLRA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2290/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, Of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner Of Income Gajera School Circle, Surat. Tax,Central Circle-2, [Pan: Adlpp 8395 D] Surat. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 54BSection 69Section 69A

…Ramesh Laljibhai Polra v. DCIT, Cen. Cir-2, Surat /I.T.A. No’s 2320 & 2290/AHD/2016/A.Y.2013-14 Page 1 of 26 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2320 & 2290/AHD/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Vs. 1. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 1. The Deputy Commissioner 11, Haridarshan Society, of Income Tax, Gajera School Circle, Central Circle-2, Surat. Surat. [PAN: ADLPP 8395 D] 2. Ramesh Laljibhai Polra, 2. The Deputy 11, Haridarshan Society, Commissioner of Income G…

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. SH. ANAND PRAKASH, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue dismissed

ITA 6280/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R
Section 10(37)Section 250(4)

…oses. On the basis of the evidence and 6 ITA.No.6280/Del./2015 Shri Anand Prakash, Ghaziabad. material and record, the claim of assessee has been allowed. He has also relied upon the order of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of CIT vs., N. Raghu Varma (2013) 142 ITD 421 (Hyd-Tribu.). 7. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the matter. It is not in dispute that the assessee received the compensation of the impugned amount on compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land. The assessee claimed the same amount as exempt under section 10(37) of the Inc…

KEDAR ARVIND SARASWATE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1319/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54B

…d holds the character of agricultural land even though the income was not derived. To substantiate the land as agricultural land, the assessee relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao 331 ITR 59 ( Bom.) ii) ACIT Vs. N Raghu Verma 142 ITD 421 ( ITAT HYD) 6. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) observed and held that in order to claim the deduction u/s.54B of the Act, the land should have been used for agricultural purposes for two years prior to the date of transfer. Whether the land was used for agricultural purposes for two years prior to date of transfer or not is a question of fact. The assessee…

K.SHANTHI,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

ITA 433/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 54B

…could not be a ground for denying the exemption claimed u/s.54B of the Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M.A. Alagappan vs. ITO, 29 ITD 69 and Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. N. Raghu Varma, 142 ITD 421, and that of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sakunthala Vedachalam , Mrs. Vanitha Manickavasagam vs. ACIT 369, ITR 558.. Assessee also produced a certificate from the President of Seerapalayam Panchayat, in support of her contention that the land sold was put to agricultural use. ITA No. 433/Mds/2017. :- 8 -: 7. Concurrentl…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH DANABHAI PATEL,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1534/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1534/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 54Section 54B

…-rebutted. The benefit of deduction u/s. 54B cannot be denied to the assessee if he is unable to use entire land for agricultural purpose for the reasons beyond his control. The Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. N. Raghu Verma reported as 142 ITD 421 (Hyd.) exemption u/s. 54B was held to be exigible on sale of land where the assessee was unable to use entire land for agricultural purpose due to vagaries of nature and non availability of resources. Similar view was taken by Chennai Bench of Tribunal in the case of M.A. Alagappan Vs. Income Tax Officer reported as 29 ITD 69(Mad.), wherein, as…

ACTI v. N.Raghu Varma (142 ITD 421) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax