CIT v. A.L.Ramanathan

245 ITR 494High Court2000#15429 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. A.L.Ramanathan

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 15, Chennai vs. Anitha Kumaran, Chennai

ITA 1164/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ly arrangement presupposes either an existing dispute likely to occur in future and to resolve those disputes such family arrangement can be made." E) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V. AL. Ramanathan reported in [1998] 245 ITR 494 has held as under: - "Held, that the dispute arose in the family and the family arrangement was arrived at in consultation with the panchayatdars and accordingly realignment of interest in several properties resulted. The family arrangement was arrived at in order to avoid continuous friction and to maintain peace among the family members. The fa…

Sujan Azad Parikh, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesujan Azad Parikh V. Dcit – 7(1) C-701, Beaumonde Tower Room No. 653, 6Th Floor Appasaheb Marathe Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Prabhadevi, Mumbai -400025 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaepp9028R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyan Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 54F

…5.2008, it is stated that out of ignorance of legal position this has been referred as capital gain although it is not a capital gain.AR relied on the following judgements: CIT Vs. Kay Arr Enterprises & Ors. (2008) 215C1R (Mad) 244 CIT Vs.AL Ramanathan (2000) 245 ITR 494 (Mad) CIT Vs. R. Ponnammal (1987) 164 ITR 706 (Mad) 10. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders. of the authorities below. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., 229 ITR 383, we accept the additional ground raised which is purely legal in nature. All the related facts…

DCIT, Chennai vs. S.Rajarathinam, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the

ITA 1458/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Bharath, CIT,D.RFor Respondent: Ms.Jahrna B.Harilal,C.A

Section 2(47)

…rred from one hand to another and consequently capital gains was liable to be levied, which was done by the ld. Assessing Officer. It was a submission that Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs.A.L.ramanathan in 245 ITR 494(Mad.), as also the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s.Saravana Stores (Tex) for assessment year 2003-04 in ITANo.2079/Mds./2008 had held that the partition is a bona fide one and capital gains was not leviable on the same. It was a submission that the order of the CIT(Appeals) is liable to be reversed. 4. I…

DCIT, Chennai vs. S.Rajarathinam, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and both the

ITA 1457/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Bharath, CIT,D.RFor Respondent: Ms.Jahrna B.Harilal,C.A

Section 2(47)

Kunal R. Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5768/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhkunal R. Gupta, Income Tax Officer 31(2)(2) 110B, Shreyas Industrial R.No. 709, Pratyakshkar Estate, Oppo Western Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aefpg2409E

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, AR &For Respondent: N. Hemalatha, DR

Section 143(3)Section 49Section 54

…2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence;" (p. 813) 10. I find from the authority referred by the learned for the assessee of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs AL Ramanathan (2000) 245 ITR 494, wherein Hon’ble court has clearly held that family arrangement should be bonafide one so as to resolve the family dispute and rival claims by a fair and equitable division of properties between various members of the family. Before me, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative could not point out that the present memorandum of family arrangeme…

Sujan Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-Xxxx, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed where as appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

ITA 1846/MUM/2009[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsianFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth

Section 143(3)

…15.05.2008, it is stated that out of ignorance of legal position this has been offered as capital gain although it is not a capital gain.AR relied on the following judgements: CIT Vs.Kay Arr Enterprises & Ors. (2008)215ClR (Mad)244 ClT VS.AL Ramanathan (2000) 245 ITR 494 (Mad) ClT Vs. R.Ponnammal (1987) 164 ITR 706 (MAD) 10. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., 229 ITR 383, we accept the additional ground raised which is purely legal in nature. All the related facts a…