Ghanshyam(HUF) v. CIT

138 DTR 229High Court2016#16754 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145B(1)Section 194LASection 23Section 28

Issues it is cited on

section 145b(1)section 194lasection 145bsection 23(1)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)enhanced compensationsection 145acompulsory acquisitionsection 34section 57section 56(2)

Judgments citing Ghanshyam(HUF) v. CIT

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1268/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

For Appellant: Shri N. K. Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1268/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 cuke Krishan Pal Singh HUF ITO, Vs. Krishan Pal Singh 124 Dhaka Ward 1(4), Nagar Opp, Platinum Upasana Jaipur Rosewood Sirsi Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAMHK2914H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri N. K. Agarwal…

SAMADHAN KRUSHNA KATEKAR,RAIGAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, RAIGAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 426/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Samadhan Krushna Katekar Vs. National 214, Narmada Krishna Niwas Faceless Dhutum, Jasai Uran – 400702 Assessment Maharashtra Centre Pan : Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

…(viii) of the Act. The assessee‟s case before us is that such an interest income is part of the land acquisition compensation itself and not taxable, therefore, in light of Ghanshyam(HUF) Vs. CIT [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC). Learned counsel thereafter quoted [2016] 138 DTR 229 (Guj) Moraliya B Balashai Vs. ITO and [2019] 471 ITR 169 (Bom), Ruesh R.Shah Vs. Union of India and vehemently contended that the learned lower authorities action under challenge is hardly sustainable in law. 4. Mr.Jasnani on the other hand has quoted this tribunal‟s co- ordinate bench‟s order in Basweshwar Mallikarjun Bidwe Vs. ITO in ITA No.101…

KUSUM JAYRAM THAKUR,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1332/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: S/Shri CH Naniwadekar &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 28Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viii)

…(viii) of the Act. The assessee’s case before us is that such an interest income is part of the land acquisition compensation itself and not taxable, therefore, in light of Ghanshyam(HUF) Vs. CIT [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC). Learned counsel thereafter quoted [2016] 138 DTR 229 (Guj) Moraliya B Balashai Vs. ITO and [2019] 471 ITR 169 (Bom), Ruesh R.Shah Vs. Union of India and 4 ITA.No.1332/PUN./2023 vehemently contended that the learned lower authorities action under challenge is hardly sustainable in law. 4. Mr.Jasnani on the other hand has quoted this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s order in Basweshwar Mallikarjun Bid…

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 835/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

Section 234ASection 250Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 96

…(viii) of the Act. The assessee’s case before us is that such an interest income is part of the land acquisition compensation itself and not taxable, therefore, in light of Ghanshyam(HUF) Vs. CIT [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC). Learned counsel thereafter quoted [2016] 138 DTR 229 (Guj) Moraliya B Balashai Vs. ITO and [2019] 471 ITR 169 (Bom), Ruesh R.Shah Vs. Union of India and vehemently contended that the learned lower authorities action under challenge is hardly sustainable in law. 4. Mr.Jasnani on the other hand has quoted this tribunal’s co- ordinate bench’s order in Basweshwar Mallikarjun Bidwe Vs. ITO in ITA No.101…

SHRIHARI HANMANT NAVRANGE,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

ITA 921/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Respondent: Shri Manojkumar Tripathi
Section 10(37)Section 147Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.921/PUN./2022 Assessment Year 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer, Shrihari Hanmant Navrange, Ward – 3, Swati 1, Ahemadpur, Bhimnagar, Chambers, Opp. Dist. Latur – 413 515 Sports Complex, Ausa Maharashtra. vs., Road, Latur – 413 512. PAN AGPPN0725N Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.574/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Shri Sabir Rafihyoddin Kazi, L/H of Deceased The Income Tax Officer, Rafihyoddin Vajiroddin Kazi Ward – 4, Swati Attar Galli Mali…

Ghanshyam(HUF) v. CIT (138 DTR 229) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax