CIT v. Ganesh Builders

116 ITR 911High Court1979#22207 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ganesh Builders

DY CTI, CC-16(1), ,MUMBAI vs. SHIPA SHETTY , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 478/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Section 92A(2)(j)Section 92B

…227 (Del HC). It was also argued that the word "Price" had not been defined in the Act. It seems to have been used in its ordinary sense as meaning money only. In this respect, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Ganesh Builders [1979] 116 ITR 911 (Bom HC). Ld. AR further submitted that in the Assessee's case, she was desirous to enhance her brand image and hence, she got associated with RR, for which Kuki had paid a deposit of USD 10,00,000/-to EMSHL as Association fee. With the conclusion of transactions of purchase and subscription of shares completing on February 13, 2009, in terms of…

SHILPA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Singh-Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 92ASection 92CSection 92F

…TR 227 (Del HC) It was also argued that the word "Price" had not been defined in the Act. It seems to have been used in its ordinary sense as meaning money only. In this respect, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Ganesh Builders [1979] 116 ITR 911 (BomHC). Ld. AR further submitted that in the Assessee's case, she was desirous to enhance her brand image and hence, she got associated with RR, for which Kuki had paid a deposit of USD 10,00,000/-to EMSHL as Association fee. With the conclusion of transactions of purchase and subscription of shares completing on February 13, 2009, in terms of C…

SHILPA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 13, MUMBAI

ITA 2445/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V. SondeFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan

Section 92ASection 92A(2)(j)Section 92CSection 92F

…R 227 (Del HC) It was also argued that the word "Price" had not been defined in the Act. It seems to have been used in its ordinary sense as meaning money only. In this respect, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Ganesh Builders [1979] 116 ITR 911 (BomHC). Ld. AR further submitted that in the Assessee's case, she was desirous to enhance her brand image and hence, she got 21 I.T.A. No. 2445/Mum/2014 Shilpa Shetty associated with RR, for which Kuki had paid a deposit of USD 10,00,000/-to EMSHL as Association fee. With the conclusion of transactions of purchase and subscription of shares co…