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#2142 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 366,470 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)

Read the full judgment

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

Kenneth M. Misquitta, Mumbai vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3014/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: 18.12.2023

Section 143(2)Section 5Section 50CSection 54ESection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 3014/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Kenneth M. Misquitta ITO-25 (2)(5) A/72, Misquitta House, Kautilya Bhavan, Old Police Station Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400056. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 PAN : AANPM8889J Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri S.V. Joshi, AR : Shri P.D. Chougule , Sr. DR Revenue/Respondent by : 18.12.2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-20(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Govindji Chauhan, Mumbai

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

ITA 814/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 20(1) Vs. Ashok Govindji Room No. 619, Chauhan, 6Th Floor, Piramal B 301, Veena Beena Chambers, Parel, Chs Ltd., Acharya Dome Mumbai – 400012. Marg, Sewree Mumbai – 400014. Pan/Gir No. Aabpc7897A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Krishna Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Ms .Vasanti Patel.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Krishna Kumar.DRFor Respondent: Ms .Vasanti Patel.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…ly owned by one person and not a residential house owned by more than one person. The above decision of ITO vrs. Rasiklal N. Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum)/(2006) 100 TTJ 1039 (Mum), also referred and relied upon other decisions i.e. i) CIT Vrs. Aravinda Reddy 120 ITR 46 (SC), ii) Shiv Narayan Chaudhari V. CWT 108 ITR 104 (Allahabad), iii) Smt. Kulwanti D. Alreja Vrs. ITO (Bom) and iv) Abdul Rehman Vrs. CIT 12 ITR 302 (Lahore) , wherein it was held that shared interest in the property does not amount to ownership of the property. 8.3 Now the only question remains as to whether assessee can be said to be the owner…

Bharat Shah, Indore vs. The ITO3(4), Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

ITA 181/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Shah Indore PAN No.ALWPS2185B : Appellant V/s ITO-3(4) Indore : Respondent Appellant by Shri Pankaj Shah, AR Respondent by Shri Amit Soni, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 24.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 31 .01.2022 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption…

V.Parvathy, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 21(1), Chennai

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

ITA 575/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:575/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 55

…eration in sale deed or sale agreement. 2) The appellant places reliance on Delhi High court Decision in the case of Balraj v. CIT [20021 723 Taxman 290 (Delhi), which was pronounced duly taking into consideration the Apex court decision in the case of [1979] 120 ITR 46 (SC] CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy in support of the appellants contention 3)The Honorable CIT(A) erred in not considering the appellants Contention that ACIT had acted purely on suspicion, surmise and conjecture thereby restricting the claim u/s 54 which is against the Apex court decision reported in 26 ITR 775 . 4) The Honorable CIT(A)-9 erred in n…

Anand Jitendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 5369/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anand Jitendra Shah, The Assistant Commissioner Of Sdc Exports, 122A, Dutta Income Tax- 18(1), Manditr Compound, Thakurdwar Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Road, Vs. Ernest House, Mumbai - 400002 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 4000021 Pan: Anqps6808R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Apurva M. Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore & Chaitanya Anjaria (Drs) Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Apurva M. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 50CSection 54F

…y other document of title. 'Purchase' can also refer to payment of consideration or part consideration alongwith transfer of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Supreme Court way back in 1979 in CIT v. T.N Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Taxman 541, however, gave it a wider meaning and it was held that the payment made for execution of release deed by the brother thereby joint ownership became separate ownership for price paid would be covered by the word 'purchase'. It was observed that the word 'purchase' used in Section 54 of the Act should be interpreted pragmatically. In a…

Shivakumar Kheny (HUF), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 792/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 45Section 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…

Basheer Noorullah Khan, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore

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

ITA 575/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Basheer Noorullah Khan, No. 116B, 5Th Block, Khb The Commissioner Of Colony, Koramangala, Vs. Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk3037H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 17ASection 53ASection 54Section 54F

…see should become the owner of the property because section 54 of the said Act speaks of purchases. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in that case followed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy as reported in [1979] 120 ITR 46 wherein it was held that the word ‘purchase’ occurring in section 54(1) of the IT Act had to be given its common meaning, viz., buy for a price or equivalent of price by Page 6 of 9 payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also considered another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Cou…

Prakasho Devi Saria, Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 3(1), Siliguri

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2360/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T. A No. 2360/Kol/2017 A.Y 2014-15 Prakasho Devi Saria Vs. Cit(A), Siliguri Pan: Agzpd611L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, ld.AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…into the real nature of transaction and what happens in the real word and contextuetize the same to such transactions in the real market situation. It is pertinent to state here, the judicial 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." In the present case, there is an obvious and plain transaction of lax evasion which has been clothed with the smoke-screen of subterfuges, by the assessee appellants. The facts of…

Mangilal Jain, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward - 3(3), Darjeeling

Appeal is allowed

ITA 729/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Mangilal Jain Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Advocate Pradip Ward-3(3), Nr. Lal V/S. Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Kothi, Darjeeling Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri-734005 [Pan No.Afkpj 4178 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, A.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 22.03.2018 Passed In Case No.69/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities Findings Treating His Short Term Capital Loss (Stcl) Arising From Sale Of Shares After Payment Of Security Transaction Tax (Stt), Amounting To ₹1,92,320/- As Bogus Unexplained Cash Credits. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “4. Decision :- I Have Perused The Assessment Order, The Grounds Of Appeal & The Submissions Made By The Ld.. A/R On Behalf Of The Appellant. My Observations & Findings Are As Under :- 4.1. The Present Appeal Emanates After Disallowing Rs. 11,92,320/- Arising Out Of Shares Transaction & Treated The Same As Bogus. In This Case The Assessee Purchased 32000 Shares Of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. Through Eureka Stock & Shares Broking Services Limited @ Rs. 77.37 Per Share Aggregating To Rs. 24,79,714/- On 11.02.2014 & Further Sold The

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

…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" 4.8 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McMowell & Co Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 148 (S.C), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has denounced tax avoidance, if not bona fide. The relevant…

Kamal Singh Kundalia, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Siliguri

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2359/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Kamal Sinigh Kundalia V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Pradip Lakhotia, 2Nd Ward-1(4), Aayakar Floor, Metro Plaza, Sf Bhawana, Matigara, Road, Siliguri-734005 Siliguri-734010 [Pan No.Akupk 1029 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl-Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 29.08.2017 Passed In Case No.49/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. The Assessee’S Detailed Paper Book Comprising Of Bank Statement (For The Period Of 01.04.2011 To 31.03.2012), Share Certificate In This Taxpayer’S Name Dated 31.12.2011, Allotment Letter Of 15,000 Shares Of Cressanda Solutions After Due Approval Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court Dated 21.02.2013, Show-Cause Notice, Demat Account With The Broker Firm & Contract Notes Etc.; Stands Perused.

Section 143(3)Section 68

…k 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 judicial wisdom of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V Arvinda Raju (TN) (1979) 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 facts of t…

Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 54Section 54F

…other document of title. 'Purchase' can also refer to payment of consideration or part consideration along with transfer of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Supreme Court way back in 1979 in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Taxman 541, however, gave it a wider meaning and it was held that the payment made for execution of release deed by the brother thereby joint ownership became separate ownership for price paid would be covered by the word 'purchase'. It was observed that the word 'purchase' used in Section 54 of the Act should be interpreted pragmatically in a p…

Ashok G. Chauhan, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 1309/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm (Division Bench) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1309/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) In The Matter Of;

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 27Section 54Section 54F

…ouse owned by more than one person. The above decision of ITO vrs. Rasiklal N. Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum)/(2006) 100 TTJ 9 I.T.A. No. 1309/Mum/2016 Ashok G. Chauhan 1039 (Mum), also referred and relied upon other decisions i.e. i) CIT Vrs. Aravinda Reddy 120 ITR 46 (SC), ii) Shiv Narayan Chaudhari V. CWT 108 ITR 104 (Allahabad), iii) Smt. Kulwanti D. Alreja Vrs. ITO (Bom) and iv) Abdul Rehman Vrs. CIT 12 ITR 302 (Lahore) , wherein it was held that shared interest in the property does not amount to ownership of the property. 8.3 Now the only question remains as to whether assessee can be said to be the owner…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 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 (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." Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell& Co. Ltd (1985) 154 ITR 148(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has denounced tax avoidance, if not Bonafide. The relevant part o…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 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 (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." Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell& Co. Ltd (1985) 154 ITR 148(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has denounced tax avoidance, if not Bonafide. The relevant part o…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 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 (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." Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell& Co. Ltd (1985) 154 ITR 148(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has denounced tax avoidance, if not Bonafide. The relevant part o…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 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 (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." Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcdowell& Co. Ltd (1985) 154 ITR 148(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has denounced tax avoidance, if not Bonafide. The relevant part o…

Sh. Bal Kishan Atal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2649/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 234BSection 54Section 54BSection 54F

…speaks of purchase. Moreover' the ownership of the property may have different connotation 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 46, 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 relea…

Shri Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 296/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ito, बनाम/ 9, Jashwant Society, Ward – 7(2), Vs. Jodhpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akypp 5852 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 54Section 54F

…rovisions of sec. 54 of the IT. Act, it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property. Sec. 54 of the Act speaks of purchase." Hon'ble high court relied on supreme court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. T. N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 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 Dashrath Ambalal Patel vs. ITO A.Y. 2007-08 payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration." It is therefore, following the finding as discussed a…

Hemdendra K. Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1017/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 54Section 54ESection 54F

Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

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

…(para 1), " Mahomedally Tajbhoy v. CEPT [1951] 20 ITR 274 (Bom.) (para 5), 8 Amirali Akbarali Engineer " Dr. Anand Basappa v. ITO [2004] 91 ITD 53 (Bang.) (para 6), " CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976] 105 ITR 43 (Guj.) (para 6), " CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/ 2 Taxman 541 (SC) (para 6), " Keshavji Raoji & Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1/ 49 Taxman 87 (SC) (para 7) and " B.B. Sarkar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 150/ 7 Taxman 239 (Cal.) (para 10). 2.3. It is further noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Raman Kumar Suri [2013] 29 taxmann.com 231 (Bombay)/[2013] 212 Taxman 411 (Bombay)/[2013] 25…