ITR 83 (SC) 10. Commissioner of Income Tax. V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 11. CIT v. Ms. Bina Indrakumar

370 ITR 552High Court2015#24713 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2021.

Judgments citing ITR 83 (SC) 10. Commissioner of Income Tax. V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 11. CIT v. Ms. Bina Indrakumar

Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 55/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 9. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 10. Commissioner of Income Tax. V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 11. CIT vs. Ms. Bina Indrakumar (2015) 61 taxmann.com 11 (2015) 370 ITR 552 12. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (HC Bombay) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vikas Polymers (2003) 341 ITR 537 (HC Delhi) 7.1 During the course of appellate proceedings before us on the issue of depreciation on assets it was submitted that this issue was also duly considered during the course of original assessme…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Cresent Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj TopraniFor Respondent: Shri Neil Phillip

Section 53A

…tted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in holding that the gain from sale of properties is to be assessed as long term capital gain. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Vina Indra Kumar, [2015] 370 ITR 552; and ii) PCIT v/s Vembu Vaidyanathan, ITA no.1459/2016, dated 22.01.2019. 6 M/s. Crescent Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the facts and materials on record, it is evident that vide separate registered sale deeds executed on 23rd December 2005, the assessee along with three other…

Bhansali Infotech P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 426/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Office No. 5 & 6 Income Tax (Osd) 10(3) Shakti Arcade Aayakar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Plot No.5, Sector – 19D Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Room No.517, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccb7808E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 147

…een denied by the Revenue. Allotment letter is governed by Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act and hence an enforceable right got created in favour of the assessee. Reliance was placed in this regard on decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of Bina Indra Kumar 370 ITR 552 (Mumbai). It was further submitted that MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, allotment letter and cancellation deed are to be read in context of Section 19 & 54 of 14 M/s. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Transfer of Property Act 1882 & S.10 of Specific Relief Act 1963. From these provisions, it is apparent that a vested right in the nature of capital assets…