CIT v. C. Sugumaranl

281 CTR 115High Court2015#24192 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 362,844 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. C. Sugumaranl

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 321/JPR/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 271E

…e owner, the whole assessment proceedings and the consequential demand and other notices against the P.A. Holder are ab-initio void. The ld. AR of the assessee further filed the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs C. Sugumaranl, (2015) 281 CTR 115 (Mad) wherein it was held that ‘’Assessee was merely a power of attorney holder and property rights were not handed over to him; assessee could not be treated as owner of the property sold while computing gains in his hands. 2.6 On the other hand, the ld.DR supported the order of the AO and relied on following case laws. (1) CIT vs Uttam Chand…

C.R.Parthiban, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee it is dismissed

ITA 1023/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1023/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopalakrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 47Section 54

…given power of attorney to one Shri K. Lakshmanan who has no relevance as the same cannot be considered as transfer,is rightly observed by the learned PCIT, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of C. Sugumaran reported in 281 CTR 115. Thus, the Assessee purchased land prior to date of sale of original asset but for construction, the period of investment should be calculated from the date of sale of original asset and accordingly, the assessee is not eligible to claim the investment for deduction u/s.54 of the Act. 8. It is noted that the assessee could not produce documents i…

Shri Kewal Lakhera, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 712/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Vijay Kumar Chadha, Senior DR
Section 68Section 69A

…he hands of assessee and brought on record additional evidence before the ld. CIT (A) which was allowed u/s 46A of the Act. 6. Ld. AR for the assessee by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case the case of CIT vs. C. Sugumaran (2015) 281 CTR 115 contended that when assessee was not owner of the property in question rather he was mere Attorney of Smt. Rajwati, there is no question of computing the capital gains in the hands of the assessee. 5 ITA No.712/Del./2017 7. However, bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) particularly para 11 goes to prove that, “the ld. C…

CIT v. C. Sugumaranl (281 CTR 115) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax