CIT 232 ITR 771; CGT v Jain 230 ITR 839; CIT v Sunil Kumar 212 ITR 238; CIT v. Thana Elec

202 ITR 1017Reported decision1993#17228 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT 232 ITR 771; CGT v Jain 230 ITR 839; CIT v Sunil Kumar 212 ITR 238; CIT v. Thana Elec

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AARTI INTERNATIONAL LTD., LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 102/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Cit(A)?

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250(6)

…nil Kumar - (1995) 212 1TR 238, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Thana Electricity Supply Ltd. - (1994) 206 ITR 727, Indian Tube Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. - (1993) 203 ITR 54, Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.C. Joshi & B.C. Joshi - (1993) 202 ITR 1017 and Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy - (1957) 32 ITR 466). Therefore, so far as the present case is concerned, it cannot be said that the issue was a debatable one. 12 . In view of the above submissions, in our considered view the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal…

SULZER PUMPS INDIA LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, Shri Sushil Kr

Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92CSection 95D

…inate courts, authorities and Tribunal situated within its jurisdictional territory as held in Taylor vs. CIT 232 ITR 771; CGT v Jain 230 ITR 839; CIT v Sunil Kumar 212 ITR 238; CIT v Thana Elec 206 ITR 727; Indian Tube v CIT 203 ITR 54; CIT v Joshi and Joshi 202 ITR 1017. CIT v Highway 217 ITR 234; CIT v Maganlal 210 ITR 580. The above additional ground is a purely legal one and following the decision in NTPC v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit it for adjudication. Further in Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that: “24. The legislative history bears out that the Income Tax Bill,…

NANDKUMAR PHUTANE,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(1), THANE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 595/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…7 dt. 10.7.2016)  CIT Vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao (331 ITR 59 dt. 9.9.2010)  CIT Vs. Lal Singh and others (325 ITR 588 dt. 20.11.2009) 5. In this regard we may refer to the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. P.C. Joshi and others (202 ITR 1017) as under:- 3. The Tribunal, while considering whether capital gains tax can be levied on the sale of this land by the assessees, has applied the tests laid down by the 3 Shri Nandkumar Krishnarao Phutane Bombay High Court in an unreported judgment in the case of CWT vs. Poddar Mills Ltd. (WT Ref. No. 5/64 decided on 4th February, 1972). The T…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. M/S KRISH HOME PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we set aside the order of the ld

ITA 390/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 2(14)(iii)

…Court in the case of CWT v. H.V. Mungale [1984] 145 ITR 208, ratio of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Wealth-tax Reference No. 5 of 1964 decided on 4-12-1973 and the judgment of this Court in CIT v. P.C. Joshi and B.C. Joshi [1993] 202 ITR 1017 . The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is 12 ITO vs. M/s Krish Home Pvt. Ltd. that the fact that the land was lying vacant and not used for cultivation for several years was not of any legal consequence. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Court must presume that the vacant land continued to be '…

BHIMRAO JANU JADHAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 4 PANVEL, NEW PANVEL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 390/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S. Bhimrao Janu Jadhav Vs. Ito Wd 4 Panvel 205, Highway Commerce Centre, Triffed Tower 2Nd Floor, L Sec-17 Jn Of I.B. Patel Road, W.E. Highway Behind H.P. Petrol Pump Opp. Khanda Colony Goregaon (E), New Panvel -410 206 Mumbai – 400 063

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

…l in ITO Vs Ashok Shukla ITA No. 207/ Ind /2012, dated 31.08.2012, Mumbai Tribunal in Vinit Kumar Inder Kumar Gupta versus JCIT, ITA No. 2736/M/2013 dated 16 December 2015 and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Versus PC Joshi and others (202 ITR 1017) (Bombay). On the contrary the learned AR for the revenue supported the findings of authorities below. It was submitted that the land sold by assessee was not agriculture land. No agriculture activities were carried or undertaken by assessee. The land was not used for any agricultural purpose from last two years. The assessee purchased the s…