Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT

19 SOT 612High Court2008#10221 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also reported as

210 ITR 233

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55valuation of sharesgoing concernindexed cost of acquisitionfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetdate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 281/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…also placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that where the taxing statute prescribes a rule, it has to be strictly and mandatorily followed: • Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT ([1994] 207 ITR 1 (SC)) • Mrs. Prem Shamsher Singh v. CWT ([1994] 210 ITR 233 (Del HC)) 1.27. In the instant case, the learned AO has proceeded beyond the mandate of Rule 11 UA of the IT Rules and alleged that the Appellant should have valued its current investment first before proceeding to value its equity shares as per the provisions of the said rule. In doing so, the AO has gone beyond the express provision of Rule 11…

SUSHILADEVI R. SOMANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 5795/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 55A

…T Mumbai while deciding the case of Mrs. Shashi Dharnidharka has not considered the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania cited supra. The Hon'ble ITAT further relied on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case Madhu Tyagi 19 SOT 612, but facts of the present case are different from the facts of the case of Madhu Tyagi. However, the ratio given even in the case of Madhu Tyagi supports the view of the AO. In that case, the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT held that one cannot have a different approach in fixing the price of the same asset for the purpose of computing Capital Gain. In that ca…

CONVERGYS INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 782/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 782/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 & Sa No. 132/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Industrial Plot No. 243, Tower-A, Circle-4(2), 3Rd, 4Th, 5Th 1St & Tower-B, New Delhi 2Nd 5Th Ground & Floors, Sp Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc5056G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr & Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 14(3)Section 144Section 43BSection 56(2)(viia)

…isions:  Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. CIT [2006] 285ITR 158/152 Taxman 308 ACIT v. Morarji Textiles Ltd., [IT Appeal No. 1979 (Mum.) 0/2009, dated 10-05-2014]  Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1/73 Taxman 3 (SC) Mrs. Prem Shamsher Singh v. CWT [1994] 210 ITR 233/75 Taxman 580 (Delhi)  Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad [1999] 8 SCC 266 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh AIR 1963 358 (SC)  Danish Aarthi v. M. Abdul Kapoor [C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) Nos. 475 & 476 0/2004, dated 28-1-2009]  Medplus Health Services vs ITO, 68 Taxmann.com 29 (Hyd. Tribunal) 30. The adoption of the value at Rs.250/- per s…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ported in 164 ITR 107 at page 127 ix. Rekha Mathur v ACIT reported in 98 TTJ 900 ITAT (Del) x. Dr. Louis PrakasamKanaiya v ACIT reported in 74 ITD 379 (Mad) xi. Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1 (SC) at page 15 xii. Smt. Madhu Tyagi vs. DCIT 19 SOT 612 (Del) xiii. Mrs. Shashi Dhamidharka vs. ITO ITA No. 5314/Mum/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 xiv. Jaya Hind Sciaky Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 383 ITR 25 HC (Bom) xv. Andhra Networks Ltd [2015] 167 TTJ 496 (Hyderabad - Trib.) xvi. CIT v. MormasjiMancharjiVaid [2001] 250 ITR 542 HC (Guj) 33.5. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the appellate co…

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ported in 164 ITR 107 at page 127 ix. Rekha Mathur v ACIT reported in 98 TTJ 900 ITAT (Del) x. Dr. Louis PrakasamKanaiya v ACIT reported in 74 ITD 379 (Mad) xi. Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1 (SC) at page 15 xii. Smt. Madhu Tyagi vs. DCIT 19 SOT 612 (Del) xiii. Mrs. Shashi Dhamidharka vs. ITO ITA No. 5314/Mum/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 xiv. Jaya Hind Sciaky Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 383 ITR 25 HC (Bom) xv. Andhra Networks Ltd [2015] 167 TTJ 496 (Hyderabad - Trib.) xvi. CIT v. MormasjiMancharjiVaid [2001] 250 ITR 542 HC (Guj) 33.5. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the appellate co…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ported in 164 ITR 107 at page 127 ix. Rekha Mathur v ACIT reported in 98 TTJ 900 ITAT (Del) x. Dr. Louis PrakasamKanaiya v ACIT reported in 74 ITD 379 (Mad) xi. Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1 (SC) at page 15 xii. Smt. Madhu Tyagi vs. DCIT 19 SOT 612 (Del) xiii. Mrs. Shashi Dhamidharka vs. ITO ITA No. 5314/Mum/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 xiv. Jaya Hind Sciaky Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 383 ITR 25 HC (Bom) xv. Andhra Networks Ltd [2015] 167 TTJ 496 (Hyderabad - Trib.) xvi. CIT v. MormasjiMancharjiVaid [2001] 250 ITR 542 HC (Guj) 33.5. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the appellate co…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ported in 164 ITR 107 at page 127 ix. Rekha Mathur v ACIT reported in 98 TTJ 900 ITAT (Del) x. Dr. Louis PrakasamKanaiya v ACIT reported in 74 ITD 379 (Mad) xi. Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT reported in 207 ITR 1 (SC) at page 15 xii. Smt. Madhu Tyagi vs. DCIT 19 SOT 612 (Del) xiii. Mrs. Shashi Dhamidharka vs. ITO ITA No. 5314/Mum/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 xiv. Jaya Hind Sciaky Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 383 ITR 25 HC (Bom) xv. Andhra Networks Ltd [2015] 167 TTJ 496 (Hyderabad - Trib.) xvi. CIT v. MormasjiMancharjiVaid [2001] 250 ITR 542 HC (Guj) 33.5. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the appellate co…

VIJAY RAMCHANDRA SOMANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3642/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar
Section 14ASection 55(2)(b)

…essing Officer of the value arrived at under the Wealth Tax Act, for the purpose of computing capital gain under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is wrong as per law. Further he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Madhu Tyagi v/s DCIT, [2008] 19 SOT 612 (Del.) to submit that the wordings and the purpose of allowing deduction towards cost of acquisition for computing capital gains is quite different from the purpose of levy of wealth tax and it is not permissible to import and apply principle laid down under the Income Tax Act to Wealth Tax Act or vice–versa. Further, relying upon the 12 Shri Vina…

STRYTON EXIM INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishisa No. 665/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 5982/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent) Stryton Exim India Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. R Khare & Associates, Ward-24(2), 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaics0797B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K Tewari, Sr. DR
Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…le is mandatory or directory does not arise. (b) Valuation officer is as much bound by rules of valuation made under the Act as anybody else is. Since Rule ID uses the word 'shall', it prima facie indicates its mandatory character. 2. Mrs. Prem Shamsher Singh 210 ITR 233: In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High court followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case of Bharat Hari Singhania and others. 3. Chandra Kishore Jha 8SCC 266 : In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an election petition filed after the prescribed period of 45 days' from the election and while examin…

MEHERU MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1807/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.5216/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mrs Dilnavaz Sam Variava Vs ACIT 12(1), Mumbai C/o M/s Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Bldg, 3rd Floor 148, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-1 PAN : AACPV8677L (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1807/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Meheru Mehta Vs ACIT, CC-23(Now ACIT, CC-4(1), C/o M/s Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Mumbai Army & Navy Bldg, 3rd Floor 148, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-1 PAN : AAGPM6680E (Appellant) (Respondent)…

DILNAWAZ SAM VARIAVA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 5216/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.5216/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mrs Dilnavaz Sam Variava Vs ACIT 12(1), Mumbai C/o M/s Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Bldg, 3rd Floor 148, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-1 PAN : AACPV8677L (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1807/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Meheru Mehta Vs ACIT, CC-23(Now ACIT, CC-4(1), C/o M/s Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Mumbai Army & Navy Bldg, 3rd Floor 148, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-1 PAN : AAGPM6680E (Appellant) (Respondent)…