CIT v. R. Srinivasan

235 CTR 588High Court2010#20012 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

Judgments citing CIT v. R. Srinivasan

Late Hina Harendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3317/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

…(Karn). (c) CIT Vs. Kapil Kumar Agarwal (2016) 382 ITR 56 (P&H). (d) Ms. Moturi Lakshmi (2020) 428 ITR 462 (Mad) (e) Smt. Sabita Devi Agarwal (2019) 69 ITR (Trib) 231 (Kol). (f) Hansa Shah Vs. ITO (2019) 69 ITR (Trib) 334 (Mum) (g) CIT Vs. R.Srinivasan (2010) 235 CTR 588 (Mad). The Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant further submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal in the above decisions is in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Dr. P.S.Pasricha (supra). Therefore, the decisions of the Tribunal on which reliance has been placed by the Assessing Offi…

Aniruddh Rinki Gandhi, Baroda vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxn), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Aniruddhrinki Gandhi Dcit (Intl.Taxn.) 14, Vaikunh Apartment Vs Baroda. Laxminarayan Co-Op. Society Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Bbnpg 1052 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 13/Intl.Taxn./Ahd/75/2017-18 Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee’S Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 54

…s been answered in several decisions and the issue is no longer res integra. To answer the substantial question of law, we may have to refer to the two decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court namely (i) in the case of CIT v. R. Srinivasan [2010] 235 CTR 588 wherein the question, which was framed for consideration, was as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the investment in the new asset for the purpose of deduction under Section 54F need not be out of sale consideration received on sale of the original asset. The question was answered in the following lines : "10. Section 54F…

Smt. Kancharlapalli Hemalatha, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [PAN :BCMPK6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee by : Sh…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Haripriay Jagdish, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1532/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Murali Mohan, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: Mr.P.S.Prabhakar,C.A
Section 54Section 54F

…2.06.2010 which was an ongoing process and the construction was completed within three years from the date of sale. The ITA No.1532/Mds./2016 :- 4 -: assessee has relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case CIT vs. R.Srinivasan (2010) 235 CTR 588. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the AD stated in the assessment order that `50,00,000/- was used to repay housing loan out of total sale consideration received. According to Ld.CIT(A), the AO is not right in rejecting claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F only on this ground. Further, Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee had taken possession…

CIT v. R. Srinivasan (235 CTR 588) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax