CIT v. R. Ramanathan Chettiar

373 ITR 424High Court2015#24865 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 149(1)(b)Section 153

Judgments citing CIT v. R. Ramanathan Chettiar

SUNIL KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3314/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Sunil Kapoor, Vs. Acit K-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Circle Intt. New Delhi-110 024 Taxation 2(1)(2) Pan Aoips5698J New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Tyagi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…the bank account of the assessee with J&K Bank. We are, therefore of the view that the impugned disallowance is not justified. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in Govind Raju (N) vs. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 243 (Kar) and CIT vs. Venkat 8 Rajendran (2015) 373 ITR 424 (Kar) that brokerage in connection with transfer is deductible expenditure. Ground No. 1 to 5 are accordingly decided in assessee’s favour. 14. As regards disallowance of cost of improvement of Rs. 31,86,363/- the indexed cost of which is Rs. 57,43,085/- the relevant facts are that the assessee had purchased agricultural land measuring two bigha…

SATISH KUMAR PANDEY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

ITA/696/2019HC Karnataka16 Dec 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 48

…he assessee had written a letter6 agreeing to pay an additional amount in the event MIFL gets him a good price for his shares. The evidence on record shows the 7(2018) 404 ITR 136 (Del). 8(2015) 373 ITR 424 (Kar). I.T.A No.695/2019 C/W I.T.A No.696/2019 11 assessee got 72 cents extra when compared…

WINVEST HOLDINGS (I) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ended that assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, placing reliance on the plethora of following decisions. i) CIT vs. R. Ramanathan Chettiar (1985) 20 Taxman 232. ii) CIT vs. Venkata Rajendran, (2015) 373 ITR 424. iii) Vaipa Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, (2017) 46 ITR (T) 109. ITA No.1519 /2019 :- 7 -: 6. The learned PCIT after considering the material on records and the submissions made by the assessee concluded that the Assessing Officer had allowed expenditure of "28,86,59,668/- without examination and application of mind and accordingly held th…