CIT v. Essorpe

83 Taxmann.com 280High Court2017#18345 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Essorpe

Sannidhi Sri Ramachandra Murthy (HUF), Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आरएल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखासदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 230/VIZ/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (HUF) v. The Assistant Commissioner of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Raja…

M/S Futuristic Diagnostic Imaging Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 259/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan .M, CIT DR

Section 234Section 51

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Futuristic Diagnostic Imaging Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No. 4, Sai Prema, Ward – 2[3][4], Vs. 6th Cross, NR Colony, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 019. PAN: AAACF7842E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri G. Venkatesh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mathivanan .M, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 14-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against the order date…

M/S Kemfin Services Pvt Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/70/2011HC Karnataka11 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 88E

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.149 OF 2011 C/W I.T.A.NO.70 OF 2011 ITA NO.149/2011 BETWEEN: M/S KEMFIN SERVICES PVT. LTD. KEMWELL HOUSE, 11, TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 022. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.,) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE – 11 (5) BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT…

Mahaveer Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 209/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (Addl.CIT)

Section 2(14)

…nd applying the depreciated value by 10% of every year for the purposes of arriving at value in the year 1984.” 24. In this regard, reference can also be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Essorpe Holdings (P) Ltd [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 280 (Mad) wherein it was held as under: “21. A part of the land measuring 5.075 acres, out of the total extent of 10.150 acres, were sold even before filing the demerger application before this Court. The aforesaid sale was not brought to the notice of the High Court. The High Court of Madras, as per the Scheme of Demerger approved EML demerg…

Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

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

ITA 930/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P. P. Meena (JCIT)

Section 54

…nd applying the depreciated value by 10% of every year for the purposes of arriving at value in the year 1984.” 11. In this regard, reference can also be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Essorpe Holdings (P) Ltd [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 280 (Mad) wherein it was held as under: “21. A part of the land measuring 5.075 acres, out of the total extent of 10.150 acres, were sold even before filing the demerger application before this Court. The aforesaid sale was not brought to the notice of the High Court. The High Court of Madras, as per the Scheme of Demerger approved EML demerg…