(B). Addl. CIT v. Glad Investments (P) Ltd.

8 SOT 612Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#25822 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 48

Judgments citing (B). Addl. CIT v. Glad Investments (P) Ltd.

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

…TA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025 Surendra Nath Gubbala assessee, and much the less any “Capital gain” was liable to be brought to tax in her hands on the sale of the same. (emphasis supplied by us) (B). Addl. CIT Vs. Glad Investments (P) Ltd. (2006) 8 SOT 612 (Delhi) In the case before the Tribunal, the assessee owned 11,72,900 shares costing Rs. 20.06 crores and such shares were offered as guarantee for the loan taken by a company. Thereafter, the company defaulted and the lender sold the shares and appropriated the sale proceeds against the loan given to third party company. The assessee did not recei…

SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHWARLAL GOGIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (5), RAJKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 176/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 2(47)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 276C

…s only thereafter mortgaged property was released, it could be said that sale consideration was diverted to creditors by overriding title and, in such circumstances, no capital gains accrued to assessee. Again, in the case of Glad Investments (P.) Ltd. [2006] 8 SOT 612 (Delhi) the Delhi ITAT held that revenue has to establish that certain consideration was either received by or accrued to assessee in whose hands income under head ‘Capital gains’ is sought to be assessed. In this case, the assessee-company did not offer for assessment capital gains arising from sale of certain shares on ground that it did not rece…

S. RAMASWAMY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-II) RG 7,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-

ITA 3378/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Shri S. Ramaswamy, The Dcit (Osd-Ii), Room No. 35-A, Central Range-7, Readymoney Mansion, Mumbai 43, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Acyps8259D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri S. Ramaswamy, The Dcit (Osd-Ii), Room No. 35-A, Central Range-7, Readymoney Mansion, Mumbai 43, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Acyps8259D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punamiya (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 139Section 142Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Shri S. Ramaswamy, The DCIT (OSD-II), Room No. 35-A, Central Range-7, Readymoney Mansion, Mumbai 43, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400093 PAN: ACYPS8259D (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri S. Ramaswamy, The DCIT (OSD-II), Room No. 35-A, Central Range-7, Readymoney Mansion, Mumbai 43, Veer Nariman Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400093 PAN: ACYPS8259D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punamiya (AR) Revenue by : Shri V. Justin (DR) Date of Hearin…