CIT v. Ved Prakash Rakhra High Court of Karnataka

370 ITR 762High Court2015#15785 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ved Prakash Rakhra High Court of Karnataka

SH. PARMANAND SISODIYA,INDORE vs. ITO-1(2), INDORE, INDORE

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

ITA 202/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Parmanand Sisodiya, Ito, Flat No.404-405, Ax-18-C, 1(2), Satyamitra Paradise, Indore. Scheme No.71, Gumasta Vs. Nagar, Indore. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alops1416K Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 54Section 54B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Parmanand Sisodiya, ITO, Flat No.404-405, AX-18-C, 1(2), Satyamitra Paradise, Indore. Scheme No.71, Gumasta Vs. Nagar, Indore. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ALOPS1416K Assessee by Shri S.S.Solanki, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.05.2023 of…

MAHESH VISHNU PASHANKAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

ITA 429/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 45

…round and reason to substitute the actual consideration received with the figure relying upon the market quotation of the share as the fair market value.” 17. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and another Vs. Ved Prakash Rakhra reported in 370 ITR 762 held that the exchange value specified in JDA is to be taken as the full value of the consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains on entering into the JDA. The relevant paragraph is as under : “9. …… The exchange value in consideration of 50% of the land was agreed to be conveyed to the Developer and/or his nominee/s valued at…

VISHNU PUNDALIK PASHANKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

ITA 428/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 45

…round and reason to substitute the actual consideration received with the figure relying upon the market quotation of the share as the fair market value.” 17. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and another Vs. Ved Prakash Rakhra reported in 370 ITR 762 held that the exchange value specified in JDA is to be taken as the full value of the consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains on entering into the JDA. The relevant paragraph is as under : “9. …… The exchange value in consideration of 50% of the land was agreed to be conveyed to the Developer and/or his nominee/s valued at…

AMIT VISHNU PASHANKAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

ITA 427/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 45

…round and reason to substitute the actual consideration received with the figure relying upon the market quotation of the share as the fair market value.” 17. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and another Vs. Ved Prakash Rakhra reported in 370 ITR 762 held that the exchange value specified in JDA is to be taken as the full value of the consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains on entering into the JDA. The relevant paragraph is as under : “9. …… The exchange value in consideration of 50% of the land was agreed to be conveyed to the Developer and/or his nominee/s valued at…

L. VIVEKANANDA,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

ITA 1087/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R

…ITA No.1087/Bang/2018 Shri L. Vivekananda, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri L. Vivekananda M/s. Vivek Hotels, 1294/1-B ACIT J.L.B. Road Circle-1(1), Residency Road Vs. Mysuru-570 005 Nazarbad Mysuru-570 010 PAN NO : AASPV6693A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G.N. Bhat, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2020 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee…

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

ITA 254/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 53ASection 54F

…ion in transferred and part performance (Substantial payment) is made, then only transfer is considered as per Section 2(47)(v):- (i) Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia V. CIT 260 ITR 9 (ii) CIT V. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd 363 ITR (iii) CIT V Ved Prakash Rakhra 370 ITR 762 (Karnataka) (iv) Shri Mahesh Nemichandra Ganeshwade V ITO ITANo.594/PN/10 ITAT (Pune) (C) Assessment u/s 147 cannot be reopened on change of opinion:- (i) CIT V. Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR - (ii) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Others v/s ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd 348 ITR 0299 (SC) Sheetal Garg (iii) Commiss…

CIT v. Ved Prakash Rakhra High Court of Karnataka (370 ITR 762) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax