Aspi Cinwala v. Asstt. CIT{2012}

81 ITD 163Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#18313 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Aspi Cinwala v. Asstt. CIT{2012}

Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 678/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 cuke Birma Devi, I.T.O., Vs. B-21, Jadon Nagar, Near Ward 6(2), Railway Station, Durgapura, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BKCPD 2758 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gup…

ITO, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad vs. Subrahmanyam Kotikalapudi, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 269/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Subrahmanyam Kotikalapudi, Ward – 4(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

For Appellant: Smt Geetinder MannFor Respondent: Smt. Komali Krishna
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54BSection 54E

…view that exemption should be granted in such cases where there is a delay in making investment due to non-availability of the bonds and have held that it is a reasonable cause and the exemption should be granted. In the case of Ram Aganval v. Jt. CIT [2002] 81 ITD 163 (Mum), it has been held as under: "In regard to claim of exemption under section 54F we may mention that it is found by the learned CIT(A) that the bank was closed on 31 -8-1995 on account of strike as certified by the officials of the concerned bank. From the certification given by the bank officials, the assessee had approached the bank official…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Ajay Kaila, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6907/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA No. 6907/DEL/2015 [A.Y. 2012-13] The A.C.I.T Vs. Shri Ajay Kaila Circle 54(1) 128/B/1, Opp. Village Kilokari New Delhi Harinagar Ashram, Maharanibagh New Delhi PAN : AACPK 5645 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 31.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : .09.2017 Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Kapoor, CA Revenue by : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of the Revenue arises from the order of the ld. CI…

M/S. Shourie Duplicators Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1871/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Shourie Duplicators Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pvt. Ltd., 16A, Palam Marg, 8(2), New Delhi F-1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaacs0541B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/12/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2006-07. In The Impugned Order, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Sustained The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Hrave Deleted The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.28,46,000/- As There Is No Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. 2. The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Has Disclosed The Complete Transaction In The Audited

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54DSection 54E

…bonds and on 31.1.2007 the bonds were allotted to the assessee. Therefore, this was an impossible task to the assessee to buy the bonds within the specified time as the bonds were not available. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 81 ITD 163. Attention of the Bench was drawn on paras 15 to 20 of the order of the Tribunal where in similar circumstances, the claim of deduction u/s 54F was allowed. On the other hand, the Id. DR placed reliance on the order of the CIT(A). 11. We have heard the rival submissions and consider them carefully. After taking into consideration all the facts and…

ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanjiva Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 913/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2007-08
For Respondent: Sh. Sachidanand Dubey-DR
Section 254(1)Section 54E

…assessee had issue the cheque dt.15.6.2007, that the CBDT had extended the applicability of the scheme to those earlier cases where Long Term Assets were transferred between 29.9.2005 to 30.9.2006.He referred 913/13-Sanjiva Shetty to the case of Ram Agarwal(81 ITD 163) and Aspi Girwala (ITAT Ahmedabad) and held that the assessee was eligible to claim deduction u/s. 54EC of the Act. 4.During the course of hearing before us the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO. 5.We have perused the material on record.We find that the AO had denied the benefits of provisions of section 54EC,as he was…

Aspi Cinwala v. Asstt. CIT{2012} (81 ITD 163) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax