How many judgments cite CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy?

54 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (120 ITR 46), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 2(47), Section 142(1).

CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy

120 ITR 46Supreme Court of India1979#2144 most cited

What is CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy authority for?

The word 'purchase' in Section 54(1) and analogous sections like 54F of the Income-tax Act must be given its common, liberal meaning, including acquisition for a price, payment in kind, adjustment of debt, or other monetary consideration. A transfer of a co-owner's share for consideration qualifies as a 'purchase' for claiming capital gains exemption.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy · Section 54 · Section 54F · meaning of "purchase" · capital gains exemption · common meaning · purposive interpretation · transfer of share · payment in kind · adjustment towards debt · monetary consideration · long-term capital asset

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 2(47)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)long-term capital asset purposive interpretation section 53a section 53 date of transfer section 2(47)section 54f section 54b onus of proof section 54 section 17

Judgments citing CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3115/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54Section 54FSection 69A

…4 speaks of purchase. Moreover, the ownership of the property may have different connotations in different statutes. The question which arises for consideration appears to be squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy[1979] 120 ITR 461 where it has been held that the word 'purchase' occurring in section 54(1) of the Act had to be given its common meaning, viz., buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the releas…

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

…ITA No. 9321/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.9321 /Del./2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Income Tax Officer Vs. Anju Madhan Ward-53(3), E-108, Malcha Marg, New Delhi Diplomatic Enclave Chhanakya Puri, Delhi 110021 New Delhi PAN: AALPM2084K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri I.P.Bansal, Adv. Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv. Shri Vishal Chechi, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 13/03/2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM The Revenue has…

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

…sessee has paid the consideration, acquired the possession with full rights and has fulfilled other requirements of the provisions of the Act:- 1. Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [2014] 365 ITR 389/225 Taxman 239/46 taxmann.com 300 (SC) 2. CIT. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Tasman 541 (SC) 3. CIT. K. Jelani Basha [2002] 256 ITR 282/122 Taxman 509 (Mad) 4. CIT v. Ram Gopal (2015) 372 ITR 498/230 Taxman 205/55 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi) 5. Balraj V C77 [2002] 254 ITR 22/123 Tasman 290 (Delhi) 6. CIT. R.1. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727/108 Tasman 227 (Delhi) 7. CIT v. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda, [1995] 211 ITR 804/78 Taxman 2…

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

…4 speaks of purchase. Moreover, the ownership of the property may have different connotations in different statutes. The question which arises for consideration appears to be squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy[1979] 120 ITR 461 where it has been held that the word ‘purchase’ occurring in section 54(1) of the Act had to be given its common meaning, viz., buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each release in this case was a transfer of the releasor’s share for consideration to the releas…

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Varadarajan D.P., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54

…ction 54 of the Act.” 7.3 Further, it is worthwhile here to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax IT(IT)A No.235/Bang/2025 Navjyoti Sharma, Bangalore Page 11 of 14 v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy reported in (1979) 120 ITR 46 has held that the ordinary meaning of word “purchase” is buying for a price or equivalent of price. The relevant para is reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience:- “3. We find no reason to divorce the ordinary meaning of the word "purchase" as buying for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards an old de…

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

ITA 872/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

…to look into the real nature of transaction and what happens in the real word and contextualize the same to such transaction in the real market situation. It is pertinent to state here, the judicial wisdom of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Arvinds Raju (TN) 120 ITR 46 (SC) wherein it was held that "one day in our welfare state geared to social justice, this clever concept of avoidance as against evasion may have to be exposed. In the present case, there is an obvious and plain transaction of tax evasion which has been clothed with the smoke screen of subterfuges, by the assessee appellants". The Relevant observ…

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

ITA 366/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 54Section 54F

…cted or\nconfined to a registered sale deed or even to possession, but has a\nwider connotation. We concur with the Ld. CIT(Appeals), who, after\ndrawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of CIT Vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46\n(SC), had observed that the provisions of Section 54F, being an\nanalogous section, calls for a more liberal interpretation and\napplication, as the intent of the section was to encourage\ninvestment in residential house by an individual or a Hindu\nUndivided Family out of the sale proceeds earned. Also, we find that\na similar view had been take…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 54

….Y. 2021-22 purchase. Moreover, the ownership of the property may have different connotations in different statutes. The question which arisesfor consideration appears to be squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 461 where it has been held that the word 'purchase occurring in section 54(1) of the Act had to be given its common meaning, viz., buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the release…

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

ITA 690/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.690/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Race Course, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641018, [Pan: Adjpp4946N] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-5, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2029-20/1026334108(1) Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

For Appellant: Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142ASection 142A(1)Section 142A(6)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 250

…for identified property. The CIT Appeals and AO have incorrectly applied test of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Act to 'purchase` and the same cannot be applied to Section 54F. 6. The CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of CIT vs. Aravinda Reddy (120 ITR 46 SC) wherein it was held that the word 'purchase' in Section 54F(1) of the Act must be given it common meaning i.e. buying for price or payment in kind or adjustment towards debt or for monetary consideration. That the issue of ownership and possession nowhere form part of the provision and concept of transfer is alien to it. 7. The CIT (Appeals) a…

RAMDAS SITARAM PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 621/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…d also the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (deceased) 211 ITR 804 wherein the Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. T.N.Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 and the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988) 173 ITR 397 held that the term “purchase” employed in sub-section (2) of section 54, is not used in the sense of legal transfer and therefore, the holding of a legal title within a period of one year is not a condition precedent for availing ded…

DEEPANKAR MOGHA,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(1) , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4801/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 54

…esidential house. The requirement of section is not that assessee may acquire a new residential house by any other mode. The word "purchase" appearing in section 54 had come for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. T.N. Arvinda Reddy (120 ITR 46) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the word "purchase" appearing in section 54(1) has to be given its common meaning i.e. buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Thus, for application of provisions of section 54, the assessee has to buy a property as an owne…

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 54F

…ase of CIT v. Kuldeep Singh [2014] 49 taxmann.com 167/226 Taxman 133, the Honorable Court has observed and discussed various decision of the other Honorable High Courts and Honorable Supreme Court; as follows; A. CIT v. T.N. Aravind Reddy (1979) 2 Taxman 541/120 ITR 46 (SO): B. Civil Appeal Nos. 5899-5900/2014 titled Sanjeev Lai v. CIT (20141 46 taxmann.com 300/225 Taxman 239/365 ITR 389 (SC) 1449-Chd-2019 Vinod Sharma, New Delhi 12 C Reference was made to the decision of Supreme court in CIT V. J.H. Gotla (19851 156 ITR 323/23 Taxman 14J (SC) D Moreover in CIT v. Bharati C Kothari (20001 244 ITR 352/(2001)…

NAVIN SURYA,WORLI, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4772/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Hema Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…the said decision, the Co Bench has followed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Bench has followed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Bench has followed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Taxman CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Taxman CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Taxman 541. The relevant part of the decision of the Co The relevant part of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is ordinate Bench is reproduced as under: reproduced as under: “4.2 So far as the issue, whether the assessee can purchase…

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

…AO to look into the real nature of transaction and what happens in the real word and contextualize the same to such transactions in the real market situation. It is pertinent to state here the wisdom of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V Arvinda Raju (TN) (1979) 120 ITR 46 (S.C) wherein it was held that- "One day, in our welfare state geared to social justice, this clever concept of 'avoidance' as against 'evasion' may have to be exposed." 5.2.4 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (S.C), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has denounced tax avoidance, if not bonafide. The rele…

INDUMATI CHINTAKUNTALA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2033/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER निर्धारण आ.अपी.सं / अपीलार्थीर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ष / A.Y. ITA No. Appellant Respondent Smt. Indumati Chintakuntala 1560/Hyd/2018 2013-14 L/R of Late Diwakar Reddy Chintakuntala Income Tax Hyderabad Officer, [PAN No. ABBPC4708P] Ward-4(3), Hyderabad Smt. Indumati 2033/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Chintakuntala Hyderabad [PAN No. AELPC9844B] निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा /Revenue…

DIWAKAR REDDY CHINTAKUNTALA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1560/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 54

MAHARSHI GOGINENI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1644/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR

Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 1644/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Maharshi Gogineni, Assistant Commissioner of Hyderabad Vs. Income Tax, [PAN No. ADGPG7180E] Circle-14(1), Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा Shri Kumar Aditya, DR /Revenue by: सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date of hearing: 26/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीखर…

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 54B

MARUTI TRADEXIM PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 3615/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…r to look into the real nature of transaction and what happens in the real world and eontextualize the same to such transactions in the real market situation. It is pertinent to state here, the wisdom of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V Arvinda Raju (TN) (1979) 120 ITR 46 (S.C) wherein it was held that- "One day, in our welfare state geared to social justice, this clever concept of 'avoid a against 'evasion' may have to be exposed”. 8.11 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (S.C), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has denounced tax avoidance, if not bonafide. The relevant par…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

ITA 339/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya

Section 144Section 250(4)Section 48Section 54FSection 69

…ITR (AT) 110 (Bang) that exemption u/s 54F will be available if there is compliance before filing return u/s 139(4). 12.5 In the context of 54(1), the Supreme Court while affirming the decision of the API-IC in the case of CIT vs. Aravindha Reddy T.N. (1979) 120 ITR 46 SC held as under: "Undoubtedly, in the instant case, each release, in the circumstances, is a transfer of the releaser's share for consideration to the releasee. In plain English, transferee purchased the share of each of his brothers. It was for a price of Rs. 30,000/- each. Had this been taken from Non-fraternal owners of shares or from one stra…

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3