CIT v. Mrs. Hemal Raju Shete

239 Taxmann 176High Court2016#14634 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(34)Section 115JBSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 1962Section 240Section 264

Judgments citing CIT v. Mrs. Hemal Raju Shete

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, H.P vs. DEYEM INDUSTRY, NALAGARH SOLAN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 708/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 708/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The ITO Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh बनाम DEYEM INDUSTRY Nalagarh, Ropar Road Near Hazat Khana, Nalagarh, H.P.- 174101 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAGFD0437L अपीलार्थी/ Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ankit Awal, Ms. Khushbu Sood, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual) सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Awal & Ms. Khushbu Sood, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 53A

…’s argument that the amount, received in F.Y. 2012-13 before filing the return, should be taxed in A.Y. 2012-13, as this violated accrual-based accounting principles. By relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Hemal Raju Shete (2016) 136 DTR 417, the CIT(A) held that the escrow amount could not be treated as income for A.Y. 2012-13, allowing the appeal on this ground. 4.3 Grounds No. 1, 4, and 5 were deemed general and did not require specific adjudication. Consequently, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal in its entirety, setting aside the AO’s addition of Rs. 3,34,37,500 and the reassessmen…

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY-VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA-ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.6866/DEL/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 Modi Rubber Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 4/7-C, DDA Shopping Centre, New Vs. Circle-17(1) Friends Colony New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACM2062R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, Adv. Ms. Tejasvi Jain, CA Shri Kamal Gupta, AR Respondent by: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 09 01 2024 Date of pronouncement: 08 02 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA-A.…

DCIT ( OSD) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SAFARI MERCANTILE P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4566/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 254o

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2001-02 ACIT-2(3)(2), Safari Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Now Jt. CIT-(OSD)-2(3)(1), Vahanvati Conlt. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No. 552, 5th Floor, 2, Cressent Chambers, Tamarind Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Lane, Fort Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400023 PAN No. AAACS6043C Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR Assessee by: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate Date of Hearing : 28/09/2020 Date of pronouncement : 07/10/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRAD…

UNIVERSAL MEDICARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

ITA 4418/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Shah AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 254(1)Section 50B

…ot be taxed twice. Thus, the lower authority erred in assessing the entire amount as chargeable to tax in the current year. In support of his other submission, the ld. AR of the assessee also relied on the following decisions:  CIT vs. Mrs. Hemal Raju Shete (239 Taxmann 176 (Bom. HC).  CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531(SC).  E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (AIR 1954 SC 470).  CIT vs. Excel Industries (358 ITR 295 SC).  Morvi Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (82 ITR 835 SC).  Late Shri Gordhandas S. Garodia (Through LR’s vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5097/Mum/2015.  CIT vs. M/s Nagarjuna Fertiliser (ITTA No. 100 of 2003 (…

T.A.TAYLOR PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 622/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. T.A. Taylor Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.10/5, Royal Enclave, Income Tax, Besant Avenue Road, Corporate Circle 3(1) Adyar, Chennai. Chennai 600 020. [Pan Aaact 4165G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar Punna

…as income during the relevant previous year and hence could not be considering for computing the capital gains for the impugned assessment year. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemal Raju Shete,(2016) 136 DTR 417, that of Hon’ble Jurisdictional :- 5 -: High Court in the case of CIT vs. Motor Credit Co. P. Ltd, (1981)127 ITR 572 and that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd, 161 ITR 524. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 5. slump sale agreement was clear regarding the ques…

BOMBAY FORGINGS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2184/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shrir. C. Shrma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2184/Mum/2015(Ay 2007-08)

For Appellant: Ms. ArjuGarodia, DR byFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram / Ms
Section 45(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIR. C. SHRMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2184/Mum/2015(AY 2007-08) Bombay Forgings Ltd. DCIT 14(1)(2) Groma House, C-Wing, 6th बनाम/ Mumbai. floor, Sector-19, Vashi, Pin:- Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAACB2097B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 59/Mum/2017 (AY 2007-08) DCIT 14(1)(2) Bombay Forgings Ltd. बनाम/ Mumbai. Groma House, C-Wing, 6th floor, Sector-19, Pin:- Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 705 अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Ms. ArjuGarodia, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओ…

MAHIPINDER SINGH SANDHU,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

ITA 650/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok GoyalFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54E

…claim the benefit u/s 54EC of the Bonds when the same was received and, therefore, the deduction u/s 54EC was rightly claimed by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT Vs. Hemel Raju Shete [(2016) 136 DTR 417 (Bom)] ii) E.D. Sassoon & Co Ltd Vs. CIT [(1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC)] iii) R. Dalmia Vs. CIT [(1982) 133 ITR 179 (Delhi) ITA NO. 650/CHD/2017-Mahipinder Singh Sandhu 6 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. Representatives of the parties and hav…

CIT v. Mrs. Hemal Raju Shete (239 Taxmann 176) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax