Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi v. ITO

31 SOT 38Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#14034 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 142adcf methodextension of limitationsanctioning authorityapproval under section 151valuation of sharessection 151(2)full value of considerationblock of assetsshort term capital gainskelvinatorsection 48

Judgments citing Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi v. ITO

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…of the assessee. For invoking section 50, twin condition must be satisfied, i.e., capital asset should fall in the block of asset and depreciation should have been actually allowed in that block. Reliance is placed on Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi v ITO [2009] 31 SOT 38 (Mumbai); Narotamdas Bhan v ACIT [2007] 15 SOT 629 (MUM.); Raj Wonlen Industries. ACIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 267 (Delhi); Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Lid. . JCIT [2011] 44 SOT 479 (Mum.). 23. The ld. AR submitted that also, without prejudice and without accepting the contention of the Ld. AO, if it is presumed that assets are Page 20 of 37 ITA…

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…of the assessee. For invoking section 50, twin condition must be satisfied, i.e., capital asset should fall in the block of asset and depreciation should have been actually allowed in that block. Reliance is placed on Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi v ITO [2009] 31 SOT 38 (Mumbai); Narotamdas Bhan v ACIT [2007] 15 SOT 629 (MUM.); Raj Wonlen Industries. ACIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 267 (Delhi); Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Lid. . JCIT [2011] 44 SOT 479 (Mum.). 23. The ld. AR submitted that also, without prejudice and without accepting the contention of the Ld. AO, if it is presumed that assets are Page 20 of 37 ITA…

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

…of the assessee. For invoking section 50, twin condition must be satisfied, i.e., capital asset should fall in the block of asset and depreciation should have been actually allowed in that block. Reliance is placed on Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi v ITO [2009] 31 SOT 38 (Mumbai); Narotamdas Bhan v ACIT [2007] 15 SOT 629 (MUM.); Raj Wonlen Industries. ACIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 267 (Delhi); Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Lid. . JCIT [2011] 44 SOT 479 (Mum.). 23. The ld. AR submitted that also, without prejudice and without accepting the contention of the Ld. AO, if it is presumed that assets are Page 20 of 37 ITA…

RAVI AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniravi Agrawal Pr. Cit 101-102, Kanchan Vihar, Indore Vs. Niranjanpur, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aorpa 2161 B Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263Section 54

…Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP), Andhra Pradesh High Court ] 3. CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 30 taxmann.com 230/214 Taxman 51 (Delhi) 4. CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma (331 ITR 211) 5. ITO v. Smt. Jyothi K. Mehta (2011) 12 Taxman 440 6. Prem Prakash Bhutani v. ACIT (2009) 31 SOT 38 7. ITO v. Ms. Shushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 327 8. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) 81 DTR 33 9. V.R. Karpaam (Smt.) v. ITO (2013) 143 ITD 126 10. ACIT v. Deepak S. Bheda (2012) 52 SOT 327 (Mum.) (Trib.) 11. ACIT v. Leela P. Nanda (2006) 286 ITR (AT) 113 (Mum.) Page 4 of 6 Ravi Agrawal Page 5 of 6 12. CIT vs. Late Khoobchand M. Makhija [TS-706-H…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1779/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. R. Deepak, D.R
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 53ASection 54Section 54F

…ial accommodation only; that the said view is supported by the decisions of the Tribunal reported in K. G. Vyas v. Seventh ITO [1986] 16 ITD 195 (Bom.), ITO v. P. C. Ramakrishna, (HUF) [2007] 108 ITD 251 (Chennai) and Prem Prakash Bhutani v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 31 SOT 38 (Delhi) (URO) ITA no. 1779/Hyd/2019 Gyana Kumari Rojanala, Warangal AY 2016-17 7. Challenging the same, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 8. Heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department at the stage of admission. 9. He contended that the deduction under section 54 of the Act is allowable only for o…

MADHU B KHATRI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s claim of deduction is allowed

ITA 6613/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Confirming The Sale Consideration Determined By Ld. Ao On Adopting The Market Value Of 2 Residential Flats, Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 541

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 6613/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. ITO,Ward-32(2)(2) Madhu B.Khatri A-301, Bathia Building C-11, R.No.304, 3rd Floor No.1, S.V.Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan Borivali(W) BKC, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400092 Mumbai-400 051 PAN : AITPK8826F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Department by Ms. Usha Gaikwad Date of Hearing 18.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 01.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-…

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

…neer accommodation only; that the said view is supported by the decisions of the Tribunal reported in K.G. Vyas v. Seventh ITO [1986] 16 ITD 195 (Bom.), ITO v. P.C. Ramakrishna, (HUF) [2007] 108 ITD 251 (Chennai) and Prem Prakash Bhutani v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 31 SOT 38 (Delhi) (URO) 7. Challenging the same, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 8. Heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department at the stage of admission. 9. He contended that the deduction under section 54 of the Act is allowable only for one residential house and not for more than one residential house and…

Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha S. Trivedi v. ITO (31 SOT 38) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax