Canton Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

122 TTJ 515Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18870 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Canton Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

ACIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amartara Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6181/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Michael JeraldFor Respondent: None
Section 45(3)Section 48Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM ITA Nos.6181 & 5569/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT, Range - 9(1)(1) M/s. Amartara Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 260A, 2nd Floor, 190/191, Indian Cork Mills Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Compound, Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Powai, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AADCA 9217 F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Michael Jerald Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 22.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are appeals by the Revenue agains…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Prem Sagar, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7442/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodacit- 16(1), Room No.439, Shri. Prem Sagar, Sagar Villa, N.S Road No. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Marg, 12A, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Vs. Mumbai 400 049. Mumbai – 400 049. Pan – Aapps2469E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. KumarPadmapani Bohra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri. K. Gopal &Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.R‟s
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 45Section 45(3)Section 48Section 50Section 50C

…has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in not following the ratio laid down in the case of Canton Hotels (P) Ltd., vs ACIT (2009) (122 TTJ 515) (Lucknow), which clearly states that Provisions of section 50 C being special provisions, would override provisions of Section 45(3) of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the importance of the insertion of word "assessable" in Section 50C, which makes it…

Amartara Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6114/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 45(3)Section 50C

…being the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority at the time of registration of the Supplementary partnership deed. The AO, further observed that as regards applicability of section 45(3) of the Act and section 50C of the Act, by relying vs ACIT 122 TTJ 515 (Luck) observed that ITAT has given a finding insofar as applicability of section 50C of the Act in the cases where capital asset has been transferred under the provisions of section 45(3) and held that section 50C of the Act being a specific provision would override the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act. The AO further observed that provisi…

DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amartara Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6050/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 45(3)Section 50C

…being the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority at the time of registration of the Supplementary partnership deed. The AO, further observed that as regards applicability of section 45(3) of the Act and section 50C of the Act, by relying vs ACIT 122 TTJ 515 (Luck) observed that ITAT has given a finding insofar as applicability of section 50C of the Act in the cases where capital asset has been transferred under the provisions of section 45(3) and held that section 50C of the Act being a specific provision would override the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act. The AO further observed that provisi…

Canton Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (122 TTJ 515) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax