Baby Samuel v. Asstt, CIT

262 ITR 385High Court2003#17442 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Baby Samuel v. Asstt, CIT

Tharif Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. Theacit, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 489/COCH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM &GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 487 to 489/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 M/s. Tharif Builders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Thariff Arcade, Puthiyara, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode-673 004. Kozhikode. [PAN: AADCT 5386J] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shjri C.B.M. Warrier, CA Revenue by Shri Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/03/2020 Date of Pronouncement 19/05/2020 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These three appeals filed by the…

Tharif Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. Theacit, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 488/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM &GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 487 to 489/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 M/s. Tharif Builders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Thariff Arcade, Puthiyara, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode-673 004. Kozhikode. [PAN: AADCT 5386J] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shjri C.B.M. Warrier, CA Revenue by Shri Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/03/2020 Date of Pronouncement 19/05/2020 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These three appeals filed by the…

Tharif Builders P. Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. Theacit, Kozhikkode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 487/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM &GEORGE GEORGE K., JM ITA Nos. 487 to 489/Coch/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 M/s. Tharif Builders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Thariff Arcade, Puthiyara, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode-673 004. Kozhikode. [PAN: AADCT 5386J] (Assessee -Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shjri C.B.M. Warrier, CA Revenue by Shri Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/03/2020 Date of Pronouncement 19/05/2020 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: These three appeals filed by the…

Sh. Ravi Kant Tyagi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 and additional ground of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2251/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiravi Kant Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Flat No. 36, Sadbhawana Apartment, Ward-46(1), 13, Ip Extn, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Abtpt3527G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA
Section 143Section 54

…in respect of investment in residential house out of the sales consideration of the original asset, if the capital gain is assessed in the hands of the appellant.” 9. The assessee submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of baby Samuel versus ACIT 262 ITR 385 open bracket Bombay). It was held that the assessee cannot be denied the right to claim adjudication of the issue on the merits when the said issue was specifically taken at the time of final hearing of the said appeal and the revenue had an occasion to deal with the submission made thereon. He further submitted that there issue is legal in natur…

Financial Technologies (India ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 4377/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A KariaFor Respondent: Shri A K Dhondial
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…been raised on this issue, the issue was specifically raised and urged in arguments/submissions admittedly made before the learned CIT(A). In this context, the learned AR submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baby Samuel vs. ACIT (2003) 262 ITR 385 (Bom) had considered a similar issue. In this case, the facts were that at the time of final hearing before the Tribunal, the assessee had filed a chart elaborating various grounds taken, and additionally made submissions/objections with regard to the addition made in respect of unsecured advances for which no specific ground was raised. Their…

Baby Samuel v. Asstt, CIT (262 ITR 385) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax