Controller of ED v. GK Swarup

96 ITR 87Reported decision#18445 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 363,016 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing Controller of ED v. GK Swarup

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Estate Duty Vs. R. M. Sukhadvala 192 ITR 389 (Bom.) vii) Shyamsukh Garg Vs. Controller of ED 145 ITR 238 (MP) viii) Smt. Urmila Ranka Vs. Controller of ED 262 ITR 321 (Raj) ix) Controller of ED Vs. GK Swarup 275 ITR 137 (Guj) x) C.E.D Vs. Krishna Murthy, 96 ITR 87 (Mys) 50 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, xi) Madhusudan Dwarkadas Vora Vs. Supt. of Stamps 141 ITR 802 (Bom) 24. Referring to the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GM Abhayankar (HUF), 214 ITR 269 (Bom), he submitted that assets shown in the bal…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Estate Duty Vs. R. M. Sukhadvala 192 ITR 389 (Bom.) vii) Shyamsukh Garg Vs. Controller of ED 145 ITR 238 (MP) viii) Smt. Urmila Ranka Vs. Controller of ED 262 ITR 321 (Raj) ix) Controller of ED Vs. GK Swarup 275 ITR 137 (Guj) x) C.E.D Vs. Krishna Murthy, 96 ITR 87 (Mys) 50 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, xi) Madhusudan Dwarkadas Vora Vs. Supt. of Stamps 141 ITR 802 (Bom) 24. Referring to the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GM Abhayankar (HUF), 214 ITR 269 (Bom), he submitted that assets shown in the bal…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Estate Duty Vs. R. M. Sukhadvala 192 ITR 389 (Bom.) vii) Shyamsukh Garg Vs. Controller of ED 145 ITR 238 (MP) viii) Smt. Urmila Ranka Vs. Controller of ED 262 ITR 321 (Raj) ix) Controller of ED Vs. GK Swarup 275 ITR 137 (Guj) x) C.E.D Vs. Krishna Murthy, 96 ITR 87 (Mys) 50 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, xi) Madhusudan Dwarkadas Vora Vs. Supt. of Stamps 141 ITR 802 (Bom) 24. Referring to the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GM Abhayankar (HUF), 214 ITR 269 (Bom), he submitted that assets shown in the bal…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…Estate Duty Vs. R. M. Sukhadvala 192 ITR 389 (Bom.) vii) Shyamsukh Garg Vs. Controller of ED 145 ITR 238 (MP) viii) Smt. Urmila Ranka Vs. Controller of ED 262 ITR 321 (Raj) ix) Controller of ED Vs. GK Swarup 275 ITR 137 (Guj) x) C.E.D Vs. Krishna Murthy, 96 ITR 87 (Mys) 50 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, xi) Madhusudan Dwarkadas Vora Vs. Supt. of Stamps 141 ITR 802 (Bom) 24. Referring to the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GM Abhayankar (HUF), 214 ITR 269 (Bom), he submitted that assets shown in the bal…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S.Wintac Ltd

The appeal is allowed in part

ITA/910/2006HC Karnataka19 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…e valuation date. 33 There is no dispute that break up value with reference to balance sheet is to be applied. The question is which is the relevant balance sheet. On that, the jurisdictional High Court’s case in CED v.J.Krishna Murthy (1974) (96 ITR 87) (although the judgment related to Estate Duty Act) held that the published balance sheet immediately prior to the date of death as relevant of break up method as appropriate. That case is applicable to the facts of the instant case. Admittedly, there is an audited balance sheet as at 30.6.2000 which is prior to November, 2000. Hence,…

Controller of ED v. GK Swarup (96 ITR 87) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax