Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas v. ACIT

47 SOT 180Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#17966 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Judgments citing Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas v. ACIT

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…nature of loan or advance within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Act and, therefore, was not chargeable under section 5 of the Act. (d) In respect of the contention that refundable deposit cannot be regarded as consideration: (i) K.Radhika v. DCIT [(2011) 47 SOT 180 (ITAT Hyderabad)] (ii) Binjusaria Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [(2014) 8 Taxcorp (AT) 35996, ITAT Hyderabad] (iii) M/s.Unique Builders and Developers v. DCIT [(ITA No.589 & 590/JP/2012 – ITAT Jaipur Bench] (iv) Shri V.Pushpraj v. ITO (ITA No.686/Bang/2011) (v) ACIT v. R.Srinivasa Rao [(2014) 50 taxmann.com 178 (ITAT Hyderabad). In the case of K.Ra…

K Gopal Raj, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Cen.Circle-1(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 773/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…under no circumstances the capital gain could have been charged to tax in the impugned assessment year. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Vs ACIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008 and further the second development agreement executed on 11/02/2011 with RBD Legend,…

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad vs. K Gopal Raj, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 765/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…under no circumstances the capital gain could have been charged to tax in the impugned assessment year. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Vs ACIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008 and further the second development agreement executed on 11/02/2011 with RBD Legend,…

ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Kosetty Nagaraju, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 343/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…under no circumstances the capital gain could have been charged to tax in the impugned assessment year. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Vs ACIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008 and further the second development agreement executed on 11/02/2011 with RBD Legend,…

ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Kosetty Kishore, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…under no circumstances the capital gain could have been charged to tax in the impugned assessment year. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Vs ACIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008 and further the second development agreement executed on 11/02/2011 with RBD Legend,…

Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas v. ACIT (47 SOT 180) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax