Ito v. Manju Rani Jain

34 SOT 57Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#20669 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Ito v. Manju Rani Jain

VANKAYALAPATI KIRMAYE,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2126/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2010-2011 Ito, Ward -15(1), Vs. Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Hyderabad Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Vs. Ito, Ward -15(1), Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Hyderabad Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutham CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 50C

…e ‘may’ has been interpreted as ‘shall’ by various appellate authorities. a) Mrs Nandita Khosla vs CIT, 11 Taxmann.com 344 (Mum) b) Meghraj Baid vs CIT, 23 sot 24 (Del) c) Ito VS Manju Rani Jain, 24 SOT 24 (Del) d) Ajmal Fragrances & Fashions Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, 34 SOT 57 (Mum) 3. The documents produced during the appellate proceedings and the submissions of the assessee clearly show that the assessee objected to the value adopted by Registration Authorities as ‘market value’ 4. The AO during the remand proceedings did not refer the same to Valuation Officer as mandated by the provision of section 50C(2). 5. The AO’…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD vs. VANKAYALAPATI KIRMAYEE, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1839/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2010-2011 Ito, Ward -15(1), Vs. Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Hyderabad Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Smt Vankayalapati Kiranmayee, Vs. Ito, Ward -15(1), Plot No.60-A, 263, Eshwarapuri Hyderabad Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad Pan/Gir No.Aewpv 0473 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutham CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 148Section 50C

…e ‘may’ has been interpreted as ‘shall’ by various appellate authorities. a) Mrs Nandita Khosla vs CIT, 11 Taxmann.com 344 (Mum) b) Meghraj Baid vs CIT, 23 sot 24 (Del) c) Ito VS Manju Rani Jain, 24 SOT 24 (Del) d) Ajmal Fragrances & Fashions Pvt Ltd vs ACIT, 34 SOT 57 (Mum) 3. The documents produced during the appellate proceedings and the submissions of the assessee clearly show that the assessee objected to the value adopted by Registration Authorities as ‘market value’ 4. The AO during the remand proceedings did not refer the same to Valuation Officer as mandated by the provision of section 50C(2). 5. The AO’…

ITO 31(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. SUREKHA VILAS SOUDAGAR, MUMBAI

ITA 5198/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…lue adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the Fair Market Value of the property as on the date of transfer." The IT AT has noted that the CIT(A) had relied on the decision of IT AT in the case of M/s. Ajmal Fragrances & Fashion (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 57 Mumbai and held that as per the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, AO should have referred the matter to the Valuation Cell and the Revenue's ground was rejected. D. In the case of Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1) v. Smt. Manju Rani Jain[2008] 24 SOT 24 (DELHI) the Delhi bench of the IT AT has held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the A…

UMA DUTT PALIWAL PROP.,PANIPAT vs. ADDL. CIT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4626/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Uma Dutt Paliwal, Vs Addl. Cit, Prop. Paliwal Home Furnishing, Karnal. Panipat. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50C

…r is less than valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority and further that he has not disputed the addition before Appellate Authorities under Stamp Duty Act. Again the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT has held in Ajmal Fragrances & Fashions (P) Ltd. vs CIT 34 SOT 57 (Mum) that if the assessee objects to the stamp duty valuation, the Assessing Officer is bound to refer the matter to the valuation officer. A similar view was taken by the I.T.A. No. 4626/Del/2011 Assessment year 2008-09 ‘G’ Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Sarwan Kumar vs ITO in I.T.A. No. 4379/Del/2009. On going through all these judicial pr…

Ito v. Manju Rani Jain (34 SOT 57) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax