H.C. 72 DTR 232 CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad. H.C.) Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT

133 TTJ 64Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#22533 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing H.C. 72 DTR 232 CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad. H.C.) Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT

DCIT 32(2), MUMBAI vs. POONAM ANIL DALMIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3471/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrig. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3471/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar P. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIG. S. PANNU, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3471/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT - 32(2) Poonam Anil Dalmia, R. No. 308, 3rd floor, C-11, बिधम/ B-41/206, Yogi Nagar, PratyakshkarBhavan, BKC Saraswati CHS, Eksar Vs. Bandra, Mumbai-51. Rd, Borivali(W), Mumbai-14 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AABPD6802G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Ishwar P. Rathi प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Suman Kumar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01/01/2018 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीता…

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 54

…if the construction of new house is not completed within statutory period:- CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar Karnataka H.C. 72 DTR 232 CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad. H.C.) Mrs. Seetha Subramanian vs. ACIT 56 TTJ 417(Mad.) Smt. Ranjeet Sandhu vs. DCIT 133 TTJ 64 I.T.A.T., Chdg.” Shivcharan Singh 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer ha…

RAJPAL TREHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6113/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta &For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 133B(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 54Section 54F

…e was placed on the following case laws: " CIT & Anr. Vs Smt. B. S. Shanthikumari (2015) 126 DTR 436 (Kar.) " Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad.) " CIT Vs R. L. Sood 245 ITR 727 (Del.) " Smt. Shashi Verma 224 ITR 106 (MP) " Smt. Rajneet Sandhu Vs DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 64 (Chd.) " Narsimha Raju Rudra Rao Vs ACIT 35 Taxman 90 (Hyd. Trib.) " Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC) " Satish Chandra Gupta Vs AO 54 ITD 508 (Del. Trib.) " CIT Vs Smt. B. B. Shanthakumari 126 DTR 436 (Kar.) " Smt. Ranjneet Sandhu Vs DCIT 133 TTJ 64 (Chd.) " Narashimha Raju Rudra Raju Vs ACIT 35 Taxman 90 (Hyd. Trib.) " Satish Chandra Gupt…

H.C. 72 DTR 232 CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad. H.C.) Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT (133 TTJ 64) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax