G K Ramamurthy v. JCIT

37 SOT 345Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#17771 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 111ASection 112Section 112ASection 115BBSection 115JBSection 13(4)Section 14Section 141

Judgments citing G K Ramamurthy v. JCIT

Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, Llc, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3097/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 115JSection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

…port the assessee relied on following decisions: • decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. P.K.K Kochammu Amma Peroke reported in (1980)125 ITR 624 • decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of GK Rammurti vs. JCIT reported in (2010) 37 SOT 345 • decision of Hon’ble Bangalore Tribunal in case of IBM World Trade Corporation vs DIT reported in (2012) 54 SOT 39 3.1. The assessee contended that, it can apply beneficial provisions qua each transaction, though flowing under the same source. It was submitted that, these decisions also support the contention of the assessee that, capital loss a…

Mrs. Shikha Sanjaya Sharma, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1546/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv., & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 70

…, the assessee was legally entitled to carry forward the full amount of losses suffered by him without setting off against the aforesaid exempted Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,62,06,472/-. The Ld. A/R relied upon the following decisions: (i) G.K. Ramaswamy 37 SOT 345 (ITAT Mumbai) (ii) NikilSawhney 119 taxmann.com 372 (Delhi High Court) (iii) KishorebhaiBhikhbhai Virani 367 ITR 261 (Gujrat High Court) (iv) ANG Securities Ltd. 37 taxmann.com 210 (P&H High Court) (v) Apollo Tyres Ltd. 130 taxmann.com 295 (Kerala High Court) (vi) Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. 83 taxmann.com (ITAT Ahmedabad) Mrs. Shikha Sanj…

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 243/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2010-11

…material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 21. We find that the issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision of the coordinate bench, in the case of G K Ramamurthy Vs JCIT [(2010) 37 SOT 345 (Mum)] wherein the coordinate bench has, inter alia, observed as follows: 5. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the decisions cited. Some admitted facts of the case are that there was long-term capital gain of Rs. 33,01,57,200 on sale of certain shares between the period 1st Oct…

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 671/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2009-10

…material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 21. We find that the issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision of the coordinate bench, in the case of G K Ramamurthy Vs JCIT [(2010) 37 SOT 345 (Mum)] wherein the coordinate bench has, inter alia, observed as follows: 5. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the decisions cited. Some admitted facts of the case are that there was long-term capital gain of Rs. 33,01,57,200 on sale of certain shares between the period 1st Oct…

Inductotherm (India) Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.CIT., Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2609/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 May 2017AY 2008-09

…material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 21. We find that the issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision of the coordinate bench, in the case of G K Ramamurthy Vs JCIT [(2010) 37 SOT 345 (Mum)] wherein the coordinate bench has, inter alia, observed as follows: 5. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the decisions cited. Some admitted facts of the case are that there was long-term capital gain of Rs. 33,01,57,200 on sale of certain shares between the period 1st Oct…

G K Ramamurthy v. JCIT (37 SOT 345) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax