CIT v. M.Chinnaswamy

350 ITR 694High Court#15686 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)bogus long term capital gainbogus ltcgbusiness connectionviolation of natural justicecolourable deviceshort term capital gainspenny stocksection 10(38)best judgment assessmentlong term capital gainsshort term capital gain

Judgments citing CIT v. M.Chinnaswamy

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…led by the department is being rejected. 4.6.4 High Court of Karnataka in the case of P S Aftab Alam 209 ITR 821 (Karnataka) as well as decision of High Court of MP in case of Prakash Natsha 301 ITR 134 MP and of High Court of Madras in case of M Chinna Swamy 350 ITR 694 (Madras) is relied upon. 4.6.5 High Court of Bombay in case of H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT, Appeal No.58 of 2001 dtd. 30106116. The Hon'ble High Court held in para 16, the court observed: "…." In para 17, the court concluded: ….. 4.6.6 The High Court of Gujarat in case of CIT vs. Ramanbhai B. Patel, Tax Appeal No. 207 of 2008 dtd.20107116 also considere…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…led by the department is being rejected. 4.6.4 High Court of Karnataka in the case of P S Aftab Alam 209 ITR 821 (Karnataka) as well as decision of High Court of MP in case of Prakash Natsha 301 ITR 134 MP and of High Court of Madras in case of M Chinna Swamy 350 ITR 694 (Madras) is relied upon. 4.6.5 High Court of Bombay in case of H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT, Appeal No.58 of 2001 dtd. 30106116. The Hon'ble High Court held in para 16, the court observed: "…." In para 17, the court concluded: ….. 4.6.6 The High Court of Gujarat in case of CIT vs. Ramanbhai B. Patel, Tax Appeal No. 207 of 2008 dtd.20107116 also considere…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Shyam R Pawar, reported in 229 Taxman 256;  decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT v M.Chinnaswamy, reported in 350 ITR 694;  decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Farrah Marker vs.ITO in ITA no. 3810/Mum/2011decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Sunil Prakesh vs.ACIT in ITA no.6494/Mum/2014 4.2. Ld.Sr.DR on the contrary filed written submission stating that assessee’s claim of genuineness is merely confined to the act that the shares were sold thro…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Shyam R Pawar, reported in 229 Taxman 256;  decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT v M.Chinnaswamy, reported in 350 ITR 694;  decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Farrah Marker vs.ITO in ITA no. 3810/Mum/2011decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Sunil Prakesh vs.ACIT in ITA no.6494/Mum/2014 4.2. Ld.Sr.DR on the contrary filed written submission stating that assessee’s claim of genuineness is merely confined to the act that the shares were sold thro…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Shyam R Pawar, reported in 229 Taxman 256;  decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT v M.Chinnaswamy, reported in 350 ITR 694;  decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Farrah Marker vs.ITO in ITA no. 3810/Mum/2011decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Sunil Prakesh vs.ACIT in ITA no.6494/Mum/2014 4.2. Ld.Sr.DR on the contrary filed written submission stating that assessee’s claim of genuineness is merely confined to the act that the shares were sold thro…

Snehalatha Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…High Court in case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in 103 ITR 437;  decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Shyam R Pawar, reported in 229 Taxman 256;  decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT v M.Chinnaswamy, reported in 350 ITR 694;  decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Farrah Marker vs.ITO in  decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Sunil Prakesh vs.ACIT in ITA no.6494/Mum/2014 5.4. In the above list of decisions, relied by the Ld.AR, we note that the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal deleted the addition on the basis that the assessee therein established the sale…

CIT v. M.Chinnaswamy (350 ITR 694) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax