Bom), CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom), CIT v. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla & Ors.

198 ITR 351High Court1992#19687 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2020.

Judgments citing Bom), CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom), CIT v. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla & Ors.

Jhonson Electric Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara

ITA 754/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.754/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jhonson Electric Company Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara – 390007. C/O. C.K.Pithawala Bhimpore, Post: Dumas Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aaacj 4908 P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Sh. Saurabh Soparkar With Sh. Mayur K. Swadia Ars. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2020 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 22.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara Dated 17.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts “1. & In Law In Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Short Term Capital Gain. 2. Your Appellant Craves The Right To Add To Or Alter, Amend, Substitute, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

…2006 and that prior to that the assessee was not having right to specific performance or that the asset was transfer within three years. In support of his submissions the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions;  Rustom Spinners Ltd Vs CIT (198 ITR 351 Gujarat High Court),  CIT Vs H. Anil Kumar [2012] 20 taxmann.com 530( Karnataka),  Chandrasekhar Naganagouda Patil Vs DCIT 183 ITD 457 ( Bangalore –Trib) and  CIT Vs Vedprakash & sons (HUF)207 ITR 148 (P& H). . Johnson Electric Co. Ltd., Vs. ITO ITA No.754/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 11. On the other hand, the DR for the Revenue supported the…

Sri Chandrashekar Naganagouda Patil, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1984/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Mallaha Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT

…by several Hon’ble High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom), CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom), CIT vs. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla & Ors. (1992) 195 ITR 28 (Bom), Rustom Spinners Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Ors. (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) and CIT vs. J. Dalmia (1984) 149 ITR 215 (Del). 7. The ld. CIT(A) however, confirmed the order of the AO by observing that in the case before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the Assessee had given up right for specific performance whereas in the case of the Assessee in this app…

Shri. Dev Kumar Roy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2250/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2016-17 Shri Dev Kumar Roy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No.44, Regency Margosa, Income Tax, Kasturba Road Cross, Circle 3(1)(1) Bangalore North, [formerly ITO, Ward 3(1)(4), Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. PAN: ANNPR 8181R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 17.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudeva…

The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Baroda vs. Smt. Rekha Aresh Prajapati, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2637/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Shah, A.R

…her husband. Therefore entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,66,81,453/- in the hands of appellant cannot be taxed because as same would amount to double taxation which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 6. In the case of Rustom Spinners Ltd. Vs. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 351 (Guj.) wherein Hon’ble High Court has held in case of an assignment of a right in immovable property acquired under a purchase agreement. Thus, appellant’s showing Capital Gain on the amount received for relinquishing her right in the impugned property is as per the settled law. 7. Since taxes have been fully paid by her husband and there is no…