CIT v. Smt. Radha Bhai

272 ITR 264High Court2005#20248 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Radha Bhai

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Jagjit Kaur, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6036/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs. Smt. Jagjit Kaur Circle – 41 (1) H. No.09, Opposite Guru New Delhi Nanak Public School, West Avenue Road, New Delhi-110026 Pan No. Agepk1858Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…e has loose such benefit of indexation for conducting the business and this conduct clearly reveals the intension of Assessee to purchase such assets for business and profession. vi. It was held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Radhe Bhai (2005) 272 ITR 264 that the period for retaining of immovable property does not ; determine the nature but the intension of purchase of such property determined the status and nature of such property. It was further held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sushila Devi Jain (2001) 259 ITR 671 that it was necessary to determine the intension of Asse…

Mrs. Jagjit Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2265/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. M.S. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

…has loose such benefit of indexation for conducting the business and this conduct clearly reveals the intension of Assessee to purchase such assets for business and profession. (v) It was held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Radha Bhai (2005) 272 ITR 264 that the period for retaining p of immovable property does not determine the nature but the intension of purchase of such property determined the status and nature of such property. It was further held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sushila Devi Jain (2001) 259 ITR 671 that it was necessary to determine the intention of ass…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Mrs Jagjit Kaur, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5994/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 148

…e has loose such benefit of indexation for conducting the business and this conduct clearly reveals the intension of Assessee to purchase such assets for business and profession. (v) It was held by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Radha Bhai (2005) 272 ITR 264 that the period for retaining of immovable property does not determine the nature but the intension of purchase of such property determined the status and nature of such property. It was further held by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sushila Devi Jain (2001) 259 ITR 671 that it was necessary to determine the intention of asses…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Eveready Industries India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 94/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: MD.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 41(1)Section 43B

…ent under the head capital gain is found to be supported by the following judicial decisions on which reliance was placed by the Ld. AIR in his written submissions. i) CIT Vs. Mohakampur Ice & Cold Storage (281 ITR 354) (All) (2006) ii) CIT Vs. Smr. Radha Bai 272 ITR 264 (Del) (2005) iii) CIT Vs. Sushila Devijan(259 ITR 671 (P & H) (2003) iv) CIT Vs. Trivedi (V.A) (1721TR 95 (Bom) 1998” 29. The CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Kolkata in ITA No.92/Kol/2010 dated 13.4.2011 in the case of DCIT Vs. Machino Techno Sales Ltd., wherein on identical facts the Tribunal held that the gain in question w…