Addl.CIT v. Glad Investments Private Limited

102 ITD 227Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#13227 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Addl.CIT v. Glad Investments Private Limited

LORAMITRA RATH,KAIRAPARI KOTSAHI, TANGI vs. DCIT (CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 48

…SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS D 5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1-29 6 RELIEF 30 A.TABLE OF CASES Sl Name of the Cases and case Citation Page no NO 1 ACIT Vs Emaar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 20 928/Del/2016 (ITAT Delhi) 2 Add’l CIT vs Glad Investments (P.) Ltd (2006) 102 ITD 227 18 (ITAT Delhi) 3 Badridas Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 34 ITR 10 1 (SC) 4 CIT v. Attilli N. Rao 252 ITR 880 (SC) 26 5 CIT v. Bagyalakshmi and Co. [1965] 55 I'TR 660 (SC) 24 6 CIT v. Patuck (1969) 71 [TR 713 (Bom) 10 7 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) 5 8 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) CIT vs. 5 Shoorji…

SMT. NANCY THUMBOO CHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1921/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sasmal, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…ining to the above transaction shall be produced. I had not reflected the capital gains of the said sale transaction, as I had taken shelter on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Addl.CIT Vs. Glad Investments Private Limited (2006) 102 ITD 227. However, now on being convinced by my Chartered Accountant and in view of the Supreme Court decision reported in 227 ITR 222 and 227 ITR 240 in the cases of R.M. Arunchalam Vs. CIT and V.S.Malhotra V/s CIT respectively, explained to me, I compute my Capital Gains for A.Y.2006-2007 as under:-“ Sale consideration received Rs. 11,61,00,000/- Les…

SRI RAJKUMAR THUMBOO CHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1920/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sasmal, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…ining to the above transaction shall be produced. I had not reflected the capital gains of the said sale transaction, as I had taken shelter on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Addl.CIT Vs. Glad Investments Private Limited (2006) 102 ITD 227. However, now on being convinced by my Chartered Accountant and in view of the Supreme Court decision reported in 227 ITR 222 and 227 ITR 240 in the cases of R.M. Arunchalam Vs. CIT and V.S.Malhotra V/s CIT respectively, explained to me, I compute my Capital Gains for A.Y.2006-2007 as under:-“ Sale consideration received Rs. 11,61,00,000/- Les…

SMT. RANJINI THUMBOO CHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1919/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sasmal, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…ining to the above transaction shall be produced. I had not reflected the capital gains of the said sale transaction, as I had taken shelter on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Addl.CIT Vs. Glad Investments Private Limited (2006) 102 ITD 227. However, now on being convinced by my Chartered Accountant and in view of the Supreme Court decision reported in 227 ITR 222 and 227 ITR 240 in the cases of R.M. Arunchalam Vs. CIT and V.S.Malhotra V/s CIT respectively, explained to me, I compute my Capital Gains for A.Y.2006-2007 as under:-“ Sale consideration received Rs. 11,61,00,000/- Les…

ITO, TIRUPPUR vs. SHRI V.S. CHANDRAKUMAR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed and the order of the Ld

ITA 2736/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2736/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 2(47)Section 45Section 47

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद!य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद!य के सम& BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2736/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Shri V.S.Chandrakumar, No.10, M.G.Pudur, 2nd Street, No.121, Aadams Building, 60 Feet Road, P.N.Road, Tirupur-641 602. Tirupur-641 604. [PAN: ACOPC 7601 D] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) Cross Objection No.178/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010…

GEETHA SUBRAMANIAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

ITA 428/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishnan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 13(2)

…was taken over by the borrower assessee lost all rights for selling the concerned property. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal ITA Nos.427 & 428/Mds/2017 :- 5 -: in the case of ACIT vs. Glad Investments (P) Ltd (2006) 102 ITD 227 and Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd vs. ACIT, (2014) 66 SOT 140. For advancing the argument that securitization of credit exposures by banks and credit institution involved a transfer of outstanding balances in loans/advances and packaging into transferable and tradable securities, reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court…

S.VENKATASUBRAMANIAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees stand dismissed

ITA 427/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishnan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 13(2)

…was taken over by the borrower assessee lost all rights for selling the concerned property. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal ITA Nos.427 & 428/Mds/2017 :- 5 -: in the case of ACIT vs. Glad Investments (P) Ltd (2006) 102 ITD 227 and Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd vs. ACIT, (2014) 66 SOT 140. For advancing the argument that securitization of credit exposures by banks and credit institution involved a transfer of outstanding balances in loans/advances and packaging into transferable and tradable securities, reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court…

Addl.CIT v. Glad Investments Private Limited (102 ITD 227) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax