ITO v. Nitin J. Lathiwala

23 SOT 25Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#17284 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing ITO v. Nitin J. Lathiwala

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…e placed reliance on following judicial precedents:- i. S MuthuRaja V CIT 37 taxmann.com 352 (Madras) ii. Sunil Kumar Agarwal versus CIT 47 taxmann.com 158 (Calcutta) iii. Avishkar film private limited versus ITO 108 taxmann.com 270 iv. Meghraj baid V Ito 23 SOT 25 (jd) 0103. Before the assessing officer, assessee has submitted a 66 page summary of all the sale transactions comparing the actual sale price as well as the deemed sale consideration under section 43CA of the act. Wherever assessee did not find any reason to substantiate that actual sale consideration is the market rate, assessee itself accepted…

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…e placed reliance on following judicial precedents:- i. S MuthuRaja V CIT 37 taxmann.com 352 (Madras) ii. Sunil Kumar Agarwal versus CIT 47 taxmann.com 158 (Calcutta) iii. Avishkar film private limited versus ITO 108 taxmann.com 270 iv. Meghraj baid V Ito 23 SOT 25 (jd) 0103. Before the assessing officer, assessee has submitted a 66 page summary of all the sale transactions comparing the actual sale price as well as the deemed sale consideration under section 43CA of the act. Wherever assessee did not find any reason to substantiate that actual sale consideration is the market rate, assessee itself accepted…

Better Option Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 948/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

…Ld. AO does not seem to have taken cognizance of the same to refer the matter to the DVO for the determination of the actual value under subsection 2 of section 50C of the Act. 28. By placing reliance on the decisions reported in Meghraj Baid vs. ITO [2008] 23 SOT 25 (Jodhpur) (URO); Sarwan Kumar vs. ITO[2014] 45 taxmann.com 16 (Del); Smt. TV Nagasena vs. ITO[2012] 24 taxmann.com 30 (Bang); and Anil Kr. Jain vs. ITO[2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Del) Ld. AR submitted that if the assessee objects to the adoption of stamp valuation in terms of Section 50C of the Act, then the revenue authorities are bound to refer th…

Charu Bipinkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)2, Mumbai

ITA 1629/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, Ito 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aamps4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, Ito 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aakps2945N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist (DR)
Section 271Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 80Section 80C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, ITO 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj house, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 PAN: AAMPS4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, ITO 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj house, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 PAN: AAKPS2945N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Mehul Shah Revenue by : Shri B.S.Bist (DR) Date of hearing : 11.08.…

Bipinkumar V.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)1, Mumbai

ITA 1130/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, Ito 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aamps4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, Ito 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj House, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 Pan: Aakps2945N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist (DR)
Section 271Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 80Section 80C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Bipinkumar V. Shah, ITO 23(2)-1, 3, Saroj house, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Mumbai. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 PAN: AAMPS4740H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Charu Bipinkumar Shah, ITO 23(2)-2, Mumbai. 3, Saroj house, Ahuja Bhavan, B.P. Cross Road No.4, Mulund (W), Vs. Mumbai-4000800 PAN: AAKPS2945N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Mehul Shah Revenue by : Shri B.S.Bist (DR) Date of hearing : 11.08.…

ITO v. Nitin J. Lathiwala (23 SOT 25) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax