CIT v. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon

264 ITR 76High Court2003#24233 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon

M/S.KERALA FEEDS LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TRICHUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kerala Feeds Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Department, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakunda, National Faceless Appeal Thrissur – 680 683. Centre (Nfac). Pan : Aaack 9796 N Ito (Tds), Thrissur. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. C. V. Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 201(1)

…ions. Therefore, if an employee had availed housing loan; he is eligible for deduction for the interest paid. CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha (1993) 201 ITR 442 (Raj) CIT vs. Dr. D.L. Ramachandra Rao (1999) 236 ITR 51 (Mad) CIT vs. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon (2003) 264 ITR 76 (Ker) CIT vs. A.S. Aulakh (2008) 304 ITR 27 (P & H) CIT vs. Citi Bank N. A (2003) 261 ITR 570 (Born) 2. The assessee is a Government of Kerala Public Sector undertaking manufacturing cattle feeds. An inspection was conducted on 22.01.2016 to verify the TDS compliance. Accordingly, the ITO(TDS) issued a show cause notice for lesser deduction of…

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI SUNIL DUTT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2972/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 148

…(P&H) CIT v A S Aulakh 5. 201 ITR 442 (Raj) CIT v Vimal Chand Golecha 31 I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 & 1112/Mum/2013 Legal Heirs of Late Shri Sunil Dutt, 6. 242 ITR 342 (Kar) CIT v C R Subramaman 7. 254 ITR 152 (Cal) CITv Estate of Omprakash Jhunjhunwala 8. 264 ITR 76 (Ker) CIT v Smt. Lakshmi B Memon 9. 137 ITD 376 (Mum-Trib) Asst. CIT v Jaimal K Shah 10. 176 TTJ 699 (Mum-Trib) DCIT v J B Engg. Works 35. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we notice that in the case of CIT v Citibank 261 ITR 570 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, wherein it was held that as per the above ratio,…

MADHU C. GANWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered

ITA 8891/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kr. Rai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…l at the construction cannot be separately to be assessed for the purpose of disallowing the Long Term / Short Term Capital Gain in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Hindustan Hotels Ltd. 335 ITR 60 Hon’ble Bombay High Court and CIT Vs. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon 264 ITR 76 Hon’ble Kerela High Court and CIT Vs. C.R.Subramanian 242 ITR 342 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha 201 ITR 442 Hon’ble Rajastan High Court which has not been considered by the Assessing Officer, therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer is wrong against law and facts and is l…