CIT v. R. Nagaraja Rao (352 ITR 565)

Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipiur

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69

…ered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case CIT vs. Kay Arr Enterprises &Ors. (2008) 215 CTR (Mad) 244 : (2008) 3 DTR (Mad) 205 : (2008) 299 ITR 348 (Mad) and in the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT vs. R. Nagaraja Rao (2013) 352 ITR 565 (Kar) : (2012) 207 Taxman 236 (Kar) it has been categorically held that ‘where there are transactions involving family arrangement with respect to transfer of shares, the corporate veil of the company has to be lifted and inferred that there is no transfer of shares and accordingly capital gain tax is not exigible.’ From the above it is apparent…

M/S Prakash Chand Sharma HUF, C-42, Kaladeep, Vaishali Nagar, Gokul Path, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

…ered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case CIT vs. Kay Arr Enterprises &Ors. (2008) 215 CTR (Mad) 244 : (2008) 3 DTR (Mad) 205 : (2008) 299 ITR 348 (Mad) and in the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT vs. R. Nagaraja Rao (2013) 352 ITR 565 (Kar) : (2012) 207 Taxman 236 (Kar) it has been categorically held that ‘where there are transactions involving family arrangement with respect to transfer of shares, the corporate veil of the company has to be lifted and inferred that there is no transfer of shares and accordingly capital gain tax is not exigible.’ From the above it is apparent…

Soni Sonu Mirchandani, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 1286/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. And Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…Enterprises 299 ITR 348 (Madras). SLP dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., 5. Sachin P. Ambulkar 42 taxmann.com 22 Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT 6. vs., R. Nagaraja Rao 352 ITR 565 (Karnataka) Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CGT 7. vs., K.N. Madhusudan GTA.Nos.1 & 2/2008. Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case 8. of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Ashwani Chopra 352 ITR 620 26 ITA.No.1286/Del./2020 Smt. Soni Sonu Mirchandani, New Delhi. 6.2. He has also relied upon Order of ITAT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Y Venkana Choudary, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 272/VIZ/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Sept 2019AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-4(1), Vs. Y. Venkanna Choudary, Visakhapatnam. D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 108/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 272/Viz/2018) (Asst. Year : 2014-15) Y. Venkanna Choudary, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), D.No. 1-1-2, C/O Anuradha Visakhapatnam. Auto Centre, Sheela Nagar, Nh-5, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aanpy 3003 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – CIT DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

…Act. In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises [2008] 299 ITR 348 and in the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT v. R. Nagaraja Rao [2012] 21 taxmann.com 101/207 Taxman 236/[2013] 352 ITR 565 it has been categorically held that "where there are transactions involving family arrangement with respect to transfer of shares, the corporate veil of the company has to be lifted and inferred that there is no transfer of shares and accordingly capital gain tax is not exigible." From the above it is apparent that even when there are transfer of…

Kumar Pappu Singh, Tanuku vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.270/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-2014) Sri Kumar Pappu Singh Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.23-3-26, Sundaram Nagar Income Tax, Sajjapuram Circle-1, Kks Towers, Tanuku Rr Pet, Eluru [Pan : Aeepp2496P] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…Act. In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT v. Kay Arr Enterprises [2008] 299 ITR 348 and in the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT v. R. Nagaraja Rao [2012] 21 taxmann.com 101/207 Taxman 236/[2013] 352 ITR 565 it has been categorically held that "where there are transactions involving family arrangement with respect to transfer of shares, the corporate veil of the company has to be lifted and inferred that there is no transfer of shares and accordingly capital gain tax is not exigible." From the above it is apparent that even when there are transfer of…

ACIT, Chennai vs. N.Ramachandran, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.35/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No.7/Chny/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: Sh. N. Devanathan, Advocate

Section 148

…placed his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Ashwani Chopra (2013) 352 ITR 620 and judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Kay Aar Enterprises (299 ITR 348) and also the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Nagaraja Rao (352 ITR 565). The Ld.counsel further submitted that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the judgment of Madras High Court in Kay Aar Enterprises (supra) was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 306 ITR 5. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the receipt of share 15 I.T.A. No.7/Chny/17 C.O. No.35/Chny/17 premium is not income at all, the…

Jyoti Rakesh Kapoor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mrs. Renu Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Mrs. N. Hemalatha, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 2(47)

…d that it was a family settlement and following case laws were cited in support of that family settlement cannot be considered as a transfer u/s. 2(47). 1. Madras High court 299 ITR 348 Cit v Kay An enterprises and others (Annexure - 6) • Karnataka High court 21 Taxmann.com 101 CIT vs R Nagaraja Rao (Aiinexure - 7) • Smt. Vijaya Raje Scindia vs. ITO (ITA No. 2780(Bom/89) dated 17-12-1993. • H. H. Moharani Manekuraje Pawan vs. ITO (15 ITD 545(Indore), • Mohd. Haroon Japanwala vs. ITO (22 lTD 61) Delhi, • DCIT, Spl. Rg. 46 vs. Sint. Vaishali K Shah (ITA No. 7074/Mum/96 A. Y. 1992-93) • CIT vs. Sachin P. Ambulkar 42…

CIT v. R. Nagaraja Rao

Also reported as

Judgments citing CIT v. R. Nagaraja Rao