Bajranglal Naredi v. ITO

203 TTJ 925Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2020#19808 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Judgments citing Bajranglal Naredi v. ITO

Arvind Kumar Agrawal, Gurgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Incoem Tax Department

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 139/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…f property by the buyer with inadequate construction. The learned ITAT has held categorically that the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) could not be applied and they have relied upon the judgment of Bajranghlal Naredi Vs. ITO reported in (2020) 203 TTJ 925 (Ranchi) (DPB 1-4). It is held time and again by the Apex Court qua the admission of appeal on substantial questions of law, more specifically in the case of Commissioner of Customs-I Vs. Aasu Exim Pvt. Ltd.:(2018) 16 SCC 591 and Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anit Dumping & Allied Duties and Ors.:2…

Muthusamy Viknesh Kumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1226/Chny/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Muthusamy Viknesh Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, 5/242-A,Teachers Colony, Ward-1, Namakkal-637 001. Namakkal. Pan: Agnpv 1117G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 23.01.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 234

…ditions made on assessment is not correct as held in 278 ITR 47 or 198 CTR 670 Uttaranchal High Court - (CIT & Anr. Vs. Reading & Bates Exploration Co.), 299 ITR 286 or 110 ITD 24 or 111 TTJ 55 Mum AT- (Datamatics Ltd. vs. ACIT) and 187 DTR 49 or 77 ITR 91 or 203 TTJ 925 Ranchi AT - (Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO). Probable view that such charging is mandatory is not proper, as if so, these decisions would not have been rendered. If Assessing Officer does not follow these precedent decisions of higher appellate authorities, they should be, distinguished on facts.” 6. Brief facts of the case are that, it was noticed…

Mrs. Indu Kamlesh Jain, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -2, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 843/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…the flat was registered in the year 2014 falling in A.Y. 2015-16 on the fulfillment of the conditions, the amended provision of S. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) could not be applied. Our view finds support from the decision in the case of Bajranglal Naredi vs. ITO (2020) 203 TTJ 925 (Ranchi) (DPB 1-4) wherein it was held that: “Income from other sources—Chargeability—Applicability of s. 56(2)(vii)(b) vis-a- vis date of registration of property—Assessee got registered an immovable property on 17th June, 2013 against the actual purchase of property on 15th April, 2011—Purchase consideration was determined at Rs. 9,10,000 at th…

Naina Saraf, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…ideration). Since there is no difference between the SDV and the purchase consideration. 11 ITA 271/JP/2020_ Naina Saraf Vs Pr.CIT There was no scope of making any addition. The ld. AR relied on the following case laws: i. Bajranglal Naredi vs. ITO (2020) 203 TTJ 925 (Ranchi) ii. ACIT vs. Anala Anjibabu (2020) 207 TTJ 239 (Visakha) iii. Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs. JCIT in ITA no. 227/JP/2018 order dated 05.10.2018 iv. Hansmukh N. Gala vs. ITO (2015) 173 TTJ 537 (DPB 23-27), v. CIT vs. Kuldeep Singh (2014) 270 CTR (Del) 561. 6. No understatement established by the revenue: There is no allegation nor there is an…