Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT

401 ITR 242High Court2018#11126 most cited
10

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

Also reported as

87 Taxmann.com 228251 Taxmann 494

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 54ECSection 270ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 45(2)Section 50CSection 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 54ecsection 11(5)section 119(2)section 11(2)section 119(2)(b)date of transfersection 254(1)advance taxsection 54tax deducted at sourcesection 119section 80g(5)

Judgments citing Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT

KANNAKI,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1972/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1972 & 1970/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 270ASection 54E

…court decisions wherein it was held that delay in investment u/s 54EC Bonds should be condoned and deduction shall not be disallowed especially when the Bonds were not available in the market during the period of 6 months from the date of transfer. A) [2018] 401 ITR 242 (Karnataka) Dr.(Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT b) [2015] 378 ITR 561 (Bombay) KamlakarMoghe v. ACIT, Nagpur c) [2014] 49 taxman.com 202 (Madras) CIT v. Akbar Ali Dhala d) [2012] 24 taxmann.com 111 (Bom.) CIT v. Cello Plast. In this vice, the AO is directed to verify the factual matrix and allow deduction claimed u/s 54EC of the Act. In the result,…

KANNAKI,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1970/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1972 & 1970/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 270ASection 54E

…court decisions wherein it was held that delay in investment u/s 54EC Bonds should be condoned and deduction shall not be disallowed especially when the Bonds were not available in the market during the period of 6 months from the date of transfer. A) [2018] 401 ITR 242 (Karnataka) Dr.(Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT b) [2015] 378 ITR 561 (Bombay) KamlakarMoghe v. ACIT, Nagpur c) [2014] 49 taxman.com 202 (Madras) CIT v. Akbar Ali Dhala d) [2012] 24 taxmann.com 111 (Bom.) CIT v. Cello Plast. In this vice, the AO is directed to verify the factual matrix and allow deduction claimed u/s 54EC of the Act. In the result,…

ANIL SHRICHAND SADHWANI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2443/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

Section 143(3)Section 250oSection 263Section 50CSection 54ESection 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2443/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, s Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. PAN: ANNPS1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Sanket M Joshi – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 23/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ ORDER P…

NAVBHARAT CHERITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARUCH

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 27/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi Jhagadia, Bharuch, Ward-1, Vs. Gujarat, Pin-393115 Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)

…Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law:" 31. We may also refer to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 228/251 Taxman 494/[2018] 401 ITR 242 (Kar.), wherein the Court has observed as under : ITA 27/Srt/2023 Navbharat Charitable Trust Vs ITO "12. It is true that the so called reasons assigned by the respondent Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the impugned order, on the face of it, do not appear to be whimsical or arbitrary reasons and it is equally true that such investment cou…

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

ITA 385/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)Section 80G

…Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law:" 31. We may also refer to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 228/251 Taxman 494/[2018] 401 ITR 242 (Kar.), wherein the Court has observed as under : "12. It is true that the so called reasons assigned by the respondent Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the impugned order, on the face of it, do not appear to be whimsical or arbitrary reasons and it is equally true that such investment could be made by assessee very well before the cut off…

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

ITA 384/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)Section 80G

…Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law:" 31. We may also refer to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 228/251 Taxman 494/[2018] 401 ITR 242 (Kar.), wherein the Court has observed as under : "12. It is true that the so called reasons assigned by the respondent Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the impugned order, on the face of it, do not appear to be whimsical or arbitrary reasons and it is equally true that such investment could be made by assessee very well before the cut off…

NAVBHARAT CHARITABLE TRUST,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, , BHARUCH

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

ITA 383/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhita No. 383, 384 & 385/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Navbharat Charitable Trust, I.T.O., 0, Rajpardi, Jhagadia, Ward-1, Vs. Bharuch. Bharuch. Pan No. Aactn 0979 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(10)Section 254(1)Section 80G

…Act for making such application or claim and deal with the same on merits in accordance with law:" 31. We may also refer to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT [2017] 87 taxmann.com 228/251 Taxman 494/[2018] 401 ITR 242 (Kar.), wherein the Court has observed as under : "12. It is true that the so called reasons assigned by the respondent Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the impugned order, on the face of it, do not appear to be whimsical or arbitrary reasons and it is equally true that such investment could be made by assessee very well before the cut off…

SMT. KIRAN KAMRA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4904/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Kiran Kamra, Vs. Ito, 2286, Hudson Line, Ward-36(1), G.T.B. Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaqpk8729C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kiran Kamra, Vs. ITO, 2286, Hudson Line, Ward-36(1), G.T.B. Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi. PAN: AAQPK8729C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 18.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29th July, 2016 of the CIT(A)-12, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The only effective ground rais…

SHALINI. H B,HASSAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, HASSAN

In the result, the appeals filed by both the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 928/BANG/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia“Smc-B” Bench : Bangalore Assessment Year :2008-09

Section 148Section 54E

…within permitted time up to 15.05.2008 for this reason that these schemes were closed for investment from 31.03.2008. She placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh Vs. CBDT as reported in 401 ITR 242 and pointed out that in that case also, investment was made after the expiry of the prescribed time of six months from the date of sale of the capital asset. She further pointed out that in this case, it was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that the assessee has substantially satisfied the condition for availing the exemption provided in law…

AMARNATH G N ,HASSAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , HASSAN

In the result, the appeals filed by both the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 927/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia“Smc-B” Bench : Bangalore Assessment Year :2008-09

Section 148Section 54E

…within permitted time up to 15.05.2008 for this reason that these schemes were closed for investment from 31.03.2008. She placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh Vs. CBDT as reported in 401 ITR 242 and pointed out that in that case also, investment was made after the expiry of the prescribed time of six months from the date of sale of the capital asset. She further pointed out that in this case, it was held by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that the assessee has substantially satisfied the condition for availing the exemption provided in law…