CIT v. A Suresh Rao

223 Taxmann 228High Court2014#10390 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147 Section 148 Section 1961

Judgments citing CIT v. A Suresh Rao

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…is a sum of Rs.29,64,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was paid by the assessee on 04-04-2005 by cheque No.539104 as part payment against the said office unit. It is further noted by us that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs A Suresh Rao 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar) dealt with similar issue wherein the significance of the expression ‘held’ used by the legislature has been analysed and explained at length. Hon'ble High Court analysed various provisions of the Act pertaining to computation of capital gain under various situations and also circulars issued by the CBDT on this issue. Relevant portion o…

INDU BALA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 60(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3869/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

…e assessee is concerned the right 12 in land in question came into existence on 15.03.2002 and not on date of its registration on 25.11.2014.  Reliance is placed on the following judgements :  Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs A Suresh Rao 223 Taxmann 228(Kar)  Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs.Madhu Kaul v. CIT &Anr.[(2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H)]  Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain v CIT &Ors. [(2012) 344 ITR 501 (P&H)]  Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Services Limited [(1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom).]  Hon’ble Bombay High Co…

SHRI BINDIGANAVALE RAVI ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2959/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathiba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(47)(v)Section 234DSection 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Shri Bindiganavale Ravi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of B-3042, Krest Part Apts., Income Tax, 36, Kanakapura Road, Circle 5(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 034. Bengaluru. PAN: BFFPR 5573E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. R. Prathiba, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 28.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by…

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

ITA 31/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.K.S.Hanumantha Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 54

…unt and delivery of 10 Sri.K S Hanumantha Rao. possession are consequential acts that relate back to and arise from the rights conferred on the payment of advance i.e., on 28.06.2008. The Hon’ble Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs A Suresh Rao 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar) has analysed the significance of the expression 'held' used by the legislature. The Hon'ble High Court examined the provisions of the Act pertaining to computation of capital gain under various situations and also circulars issued by the CBDT on this issue. The relevant portion of the observation of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (sup…

SRI MAHENDRASINGH RAMSINGH JADAV,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Jinita Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54(1)

…operty is a sum of Rs.29,08,950 out of which a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid by the assessee on the date of allotment and balance is to be paid as per the terms mentioned in the allotment letter. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs A Suresh Rao 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar) dealt with similar issue wherein the significance of the expression 'held' used by the legislature has been analysed and explained at length. Hon'ble High Court analysed various provisions of the Act pertaining to computation of capital gain under various situations and also circulars issued by the CBDT on this issue. The relevant porti…

L. VIVEKANANDA,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1087/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R

…ITA No.1087/Bang/2018 Shri L. Vivekananda, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri L. Vivekananda M/s. Vivek Hotels, 1294/1-B ACIT J.L.B. Road Circle-1(1), Residency Road Vs. Mysuru-570 005 Nazarbad Mysuru-570 010 PAN NO : AASPV6693A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G.N. Bhat, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2020 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. C A BADRINATH (HUF) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3362/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 C A Badrinath (Huf), No. 57 & 57/4, 1Th Main, Acit, Circle – 2 (2) (1), Vs. Malleswaram, Bangalore Bangalore – 560003. Pan: Aadhc3044B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2020 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Am:

For Appellant: Shree V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 148Section 2Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 C A Badrinath (HUF), No. 57 & 57/4, 1th Main, ACIT, Circle – 2 (2) (1), vs. Malleswaram, Bangalore Bangalore – 560003. PAN: AADHC3044B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2020 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AM: This appeal is filed by the revenue and it is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 2 Bengaluru dated 28.09.2018 for A. Y.…

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2692/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2Section 54F

…lahabad High Court in the case of Smt.Rama Rani Kalia 358 ITR 499 (All) & Amar Nath Agarwal 371 ITR 183 (All). 13. We also find support for the aforesaid conclusions from another decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs A Suresh Rao 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar) wherein similar issue was considered and wherein the significance of the expression ‘held’ used by the legislature has been analysed and explained at length. Hon’ble High Court analysed various provisions of the Act pertaining to computation of capital gain under various situations and also circulars issued by the CBDT on this issue. Re…

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, MUMBAI

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

ITA 3204/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

For Respondent: Shri RAM Tiwari (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(a)Section 234BSection 254(1)

…ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHAHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat ROOM No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha CHS Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 PAN:AAAPR 7703 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat DCIT 5(3)(1), No.11, Rambha CHS Ltd, ROOM No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, Nepean Sea Road, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Mumbai 400020 PAN:AAAPR 7703 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Shivram Sen…

ITO 22(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. LILADHAR R. TANDEL, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross

ITA 959/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicil Member

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…allotment of the property as held in the following judicial pronouncements. 1. Madhu Kaul v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H HC) 2. CIT v. K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59 (Del HC) 3. CIT v. S R Jeyashankar (2015) 373 ITR120 9Mad HC) 4. CIT v. A Suresh Rao (2014) 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar HC) 5. Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT (2012) 344 ITR 501 (P&H_HC) 6. CIT v. Jitendra Mohan (2007) 165 Taxman 524 (Del HC) 7. CIT v. Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR52 (Guj HC) 8. CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj) 18 Liladhar R. Tandel ITA No.959/Mum./2014 C.O No.153/Mum/2017 9. Lahar Singh Siroya v. ACIT (2016) 138 DTR 331 (K…