Appadurai Vijayaraghavana v. JCIT (Madras)

369 ITR 486High Court2014#24692 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Judgments citing Appadurai Vijayaraghavana v. JCIT (Madras)

Nalinkumar Ratilal Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 621/AHD/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 69

…o refer the valuation of the said property through independent valuer (DVO), so as to derive at fair market value of the said property. The appellant has relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Appadurai Vijayaraghavana v/s. JCIT (Madras) 369 ITR 486 (Copy Enclosed) and Delhi ITAT in case of Waqf Alal Aulad v/s. ACIT (2010) 37 SOT 58. Since the LAO failed to refer valuation of the said property to DVO and framed assessment without considering Section 50C(2) or 56(2), hence the order passed by LAO is bad in law and void-ab-initio, and therefore the addition made by the LAO may be deleted or th…

Balasubramanian Adityan Legal Heir of Dr. B Sivanthi Adityan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1700/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1700/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Balasubramanian Adityan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Dr. B. Sivanthi Adityan, Income Tax, No. 6, E.V.K. Sampath Road, Corporate Circle 6(2), Vepery, Chennai 600 007. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aampa7576R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate For Shri Pmn Bhagavath Krishnan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. In The Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. Reassessment Made Us 147: (I) The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming The Reassessment Made U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate for Shri PMN Bhagavath Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C(2)

…eneficial provision should be made available to the assessee, when the assessee specifically requested for the same. 8.1 To this effect, we place reliance in the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of APPADURAI VIDAYARAGHAVAN reported in [2014] 369 ITR 486 (Mad) wherein held that any objection made by the assessee to AO is with regard to adoption of GLV of property u/s. 50C(1) of the Act, the AO ought to have referred the valuation of capital asset to valuation cell and mere 4 I.T.A. No. 1700/Chny/18 assertion by the assessee in this respect will suffice. In view of the jurisdictional High Court…

Shri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6174/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…in support of his contentions: - (i) CIT v. Sh. Chandra Narain Chaudhri in Income Tax Appeal No.287 of 2011 dated 29.08.2013 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. (ii) Meghraj Baid v. ITO [114 TTJ 841] [Jodhpur ITAT] (iii) Appadurai Vijayaraghavan vs. JCIT (OSD) [369 ITR 486 (Mad)] (iv) ITO v. Manjurani Jain [(2008) 24 SOT 24 dated 17.04.2008 (Delhi ITAT)] 15. Therefore, in view of the above judgments, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that where the assessee is challenging the assessed value of the Stamp Valuation Authority, the Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have referred the matter of valuation to the Distri…