CIT v. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar

30 Taxmann.com 293High Court2013#7300 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar

JIGNESH SUKHDEVBHAI PATEL L/H OF SUKHDEV PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 128/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 128/Srt/2023 (Ay 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Jignesh Sukhdevbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), 43, Ashutosh Nagri, Surat, Room No.606, बनाम Jahangirpura, Olpad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil Vs Surat-395 005 Hospital, Majura Gate, [Pan : Ajapp 1141 J] Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 142A(1)Section 142A(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 50C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत "ायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 128/SRT/2023 (AY 2012-13) (Physical court hearing) Jignesh Sukhdevbhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), 43, Ashutosh Nagri, Surat, Room No.606, बनाम Jahangirpura, Olpad Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Opp. New Civil Vs Surat-395 005 Hospital, Majura Gate, [PAN : AJAPP 1141 J] Surat-395 001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Mehul Shah, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh J…

ITO-34(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. DIPIKA DINESH KOCHAREKAR, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal is Partly Allowed

ITA 2374/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 34(1)(3) Vs. Dipika Dinesh Rmno. 805, 8Th Floor, Kocharekar Kautilya Bhavan Bkc, 22/1611 Dattadham, Mumbai – 400051. Chs Veer Shrikant Keshaw Hadkar Marg, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400033. Pan/Gir No. : Aifpk4309P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ridhi Mishra, Dr Respondent By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Date Of Hearing 01.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 46, Mumbai, Passed U/S. 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhi Mishra, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO – 34(1)(3) Vs. Dipika Dinesh RmNo. 805, 8th Floor, Kocharekar Kautilya Bhavan BKC, 22/1611 Dattadham, Mumbai – 400051. CHS Veer Shrikant Keshaw Hadkar Marg, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400033. PAN/GIR No. : AIFPK4309P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Ridhi Mishra, DR Respondent by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, AR Date of Hearing 01.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the…

SMT. DULALI PAUL ,BIRBHUM vs. ITO, WARD - 2(3), DURGAPUR , DURGAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1791/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1791/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Dulali Paul Vs. Ito, Ward – 2(3), Durgapur Dangalpara, P.O. Suri, Dist. Birbhum – 731101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afypp 9079 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Respondent By : Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : /12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - Durgapur Dated 24.05.2018 Passed In Case No.20/Cit(A)/Dgp/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54F

…ccept the Revenue’s argument. Section 50C makes it clear that apart from making reference to the DVO for determining fair market value of a capital asset sold, there is no other option with the Assessing Officer. Case law CIT vs Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar (2012) 349 ITR 210 (All.) also holds that a DVO’s report’s in section 50C proceedings is very much binding on the Assessing Officer. We accordingly are of the view that both the lower authorities’ has erred in law as well as on facts in adopting the said Land Acquisition Officers’s report stating cost of acquisition of the assessee’s capital asset at Rs. 1,46,305/-…