CIT v. Mrs. Jaya Bhaskaran

168 ITR 256High Court#19451 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2016.

Judgments citing CIT v. Mrs. Jaya Bhaskaran

ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Lakshmi Mani Ayer, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the A

ITA 6710/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Morya PratapFor Respondent: Shri. Ravikant S.Pathak
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 55

…e meaning of Sec. 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. without appreciating that the Patna High Court judgment in the case of Jaya Bhaskran 168 ITR 256 relied on by the assess, is distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as charge by the spouse/heir of the deceased partner is on the gross profit and not on the net profit of the firm. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. without appreciating t…

M/S Smt Mahindro Devi, Karnal vs. AO, Karnal

In the result, all above three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 2(24)Section 57Section 80C

…hri Mani Arjun Aiyer, the assessee received the payment from the firm and claimed in the return of income as capital receipt. On being show caused as to why the said sum be not charged to tax, the assessee relied on the decision of CIT vs. Mrs. Jaya Bhaskaran 168 ITR 256 (Pat.) and submitted that the aforesaid case squarely applies to the facts of her case. The Assessing Officer after considering explanation tendered on behalf of the assessee observed that the facts of Mrs. Jaya Bhaskaran’s case (supra) were entirely different from the facts of the present case. It was noticed that in the case of Mrs. Jaya Bhaska…

M/S Smt Mahindro Devi, Karnal vs. AO, Karnal

In the result, all above three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 487/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 2(24)Section 57Section 80C

…hri Mani Arjun Aiyer, the assessee received the payment from the firm and claimed in the return of income as capital receipt. On being show caused as to why the said sum be not charged to tax, the assessee relied on the decision of CIT vs. Mrs. Jaya Bhaskaran 168 ITR 256 (Pat.) and submitted that the aforesaid case squarely applies to the facts of her case. The Assessing Officer after considering explanation tendered on behalf of the assessee observed that the facts of Mrs. Jaya Bhaskaran’s case (supra) were entirely different from the facts of the present case. It was noticed that in the case of Mrs. Jaya Bhaska…

M/S Smt Mahindro Devi, Karnal vs. AO, Karnal

In the result, all above three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 486/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 2(24)Section 57Section 80C

…hri Mani Arjun Aiyer, the assessee received the payment from the firm and claimed in the return of income as capital receipt. On being show caused as to why the said sum be not charged to tax, the assessee relied on the decision of CIT vs. Mrs. Jaya Bhaskaran 168 ITR 256 (Pat.) and submitted that the aforesaid case squarely applies to the facts of her case. The Assessing Officer after considering explanation tendered on behalf of the assessee observed that the facts of Mrs. Jaya Bhaskaran’s case (supra) were entirely different from the facts of the present case. It was noticed that in the case of Mrs. Jaya Bhaska…

CIT v. Mrs. Jaya Bhaskaran (168 ITR 256) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax