Jagatram Ahuja v. CGT

92 ITD 285Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#10822 most cited
10

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

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49fresh tangible materialsection 55going concernvaluation of sharesfull value of considerationtransfer of capital assetindexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 48

Judgments citing Jagatram Ahuja v. CGT

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…owing decisions, he submitted that the Fair Market Value has to be determined and not the value of shares: i. Smt. Krishna Bajaj v. ACIT [2014] 267 CTR 172 HC(Kamataka) ii. Jagatram Ahuja v. CGT [2000] 246 ITR 609 (SC) iii. Smt. B. Subhadra v ITO reported in 92 ITD 285 ITAT (HYD) iv. Addl CIT v Smt Indira Bai 151 ITR 692 (AP) v. Smt. Vasavi Pratap Chand v DCIT 89 ITD 73 (Del) vi. ACGT v K.K. Gosain 66 ITD 26 (Del) 67 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, vii. CGT v Smt. K.G. Rajyalakshmi 223 ITR 225 (AP) ix. C WT V Shri Katur Bhai Mayabhai re…

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…owing decisions, he submitted that the Fair Market Value has to be determined and not the value of shares: i. Smt. Krishna Bajaj v. ACIT [2014] 267 CTR 172 HC(Kamataka) ii. Jagatram Ahuja v. CGT [2000] 246 ITR 609 (SC) iii. Smt. B. Subhadra v ITO reported in 92 ITD 285 ITAT (HYD) iv. Addl CIT v Smt Indira Bai 151 ITR 692 (AP) v. Smt. Vasavi Pratap Chand v DCIT 89 ITD 73 (Del) vi. ACGT v K.K. Gosain 66 ITD 26 (Del) 67 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, vii. CGT v Smt. K.G. Rajyalakshmi 223 ITR 225 (AP) ix. C WT V Shri Katur Bhai Mayabhai re…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…owing decisions, he submitted that the Fair Market Value has to be determined and not the value of shares: i. Smt. Krishna Bajaj v. ACIT [2014] 267 CTR 172 HC(Kamataka) ii. Jagatram Ahuja v. CGT [2000] 246 ITR 609 (SC) iii. Smt. B. Subhadra v ITO reported in 92 ITD 285 ITAT (HYD) iv. Addl CIT v Smt Indira Bai 151 ITR 692 (AP) v. Smt. Vasavi Pratap Chand v DCIT 89 ITD 73 (Del) vi. ACGT v K.K. Gosain 66 ITD 26 (Del) 67 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, vii. CGT v Smt. K.G. Rajyalakshmi 223 ITR 225 (AP) ix. C WT V Shri Katur Bhai Mayabhai re…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl
Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…owing decisions, he submitted that the Fair Market Value has to be determined and not the value of shares: i. Smt. Krishna Bajaj v. ACIT [2014] 267 CTR 172 HC(Kamataka) ii. Jagatram Ahuja v. CGT [2000] 246 ITR 609 (SC) iii. Smt. B. Subhadra v ITO reported in 92 ITD 285 ITAT (HYD) iv. Addl CIT v Smt Indira Bai 151 ITR 692 (AP) v. Smt. Vasavi Pratap Chand v DCIT 89 ITD 73 (Del) vi. ACGT v K.K. Gosain 66 ITD 26 (Del) 67 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, vii. CGT v Smt. K.G. Rajyalakshmi 223 ITR 225 (AP) ix. C WT V Shri Katur Bhai Mayabhai re…

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1239/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Sant, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

…to delete the addition made on this count. He relied on the following decisions: 1. Sachin B. Desi Vs. ITO, ITAT Kolkata dt. 07/08/2015. 2. Pinkcity Industries Vs. ITO – Rajasthan High Court, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 290/2010. 3. Smt. B. Subhadra Vs. ITO, 92 ITD 285 (Hyd. 4. ITO Vs. shyam Sunder Jajodia, 26 SOT 541 (Delhi) 5. CIT Vs. Printers House (P) Ltd., 188 Taxman 70 (Delhi) :- 7 -: 6. CIT Vs. Siddartha Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Delhi, 08/12/2011. 9. Ld. DR, on the other hand relied on the order of CIT(A). 10. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We observe that assess…

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1433/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…h to delete the addition made on this count. He relied on the following decisions: 1. Sachin B. Desi Vs. ITO, ITAT Kolkata dt. 07/08/2015. 2. Pinkcity Industries Vs. ITO – Rajasthan High Court, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 290/2010. 3. Smt. B. Subhadra Vs. ITO, 92 ITD 285 (Hyd. 4. ITO Vs. shyam Sunder Jajodia, 26 SOT 541 (Delhi) 5. CIT Vs. Printers House (P) Ltd., 188 Taxman 70 (Delhi) 6. CIT Vs. Siddartha Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Delhi, 08/12/2011. 9. Ld. DR, on the other hand relied on the order of CIT(A). 10. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We observe that assessee had cla…

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1432/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…h to delete the addition made on this count. He relied on the following decisions: 1. Sachin B. Desi Vs. ITO, ITAT Kolkata dt. 07/08/2015. 2. Pinkcity Industries Vs. ITO – Rajasthan High Court, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 290/2010. 3. Smt. B. Subhadra Vs. ITO, 92 ITD 285 (Hyd. 4. ITO Vs. shyam Sunder Jajodia, 26 SOT 541 (Delhi) 5. CIT Vs. Printers House (P) Ltd., 188 Taxman 70 (Delhi) 6. CIT Vs. Siddartha Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Delhi, 08/12/2011. 9. Ld. DR, on the other hand relied on the order of CIT(A). 10. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We observe that assessee had cla…

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1431/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…h to delete the addition made on this count. He relied on the following decisions: 1. Sachin B. Desi Vs. ITO, ITAT Kolkata dt. 07/08/2015. 2. Pinkcity Industries Vs. ITO – Rajasthan High Court, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 290/2010. 3. Smt. B. Subhadra Vs. ITO, 92 ITD 285 (Hyd. 4. ITO Vs. shyam Sunder Jajodia, 26 SOT 541 (Delhi) 5. CIT Vs. Printers House (P) Ltd., 188 Taxman 70 (Delhi) 6. CIT Vs. Siddartha Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Delhi, 08/12/2011. 9. Ld. DR, on the other hand relied on the order of CIT(A). 10. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We observe that assessee had cla…

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1430/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

…h to delete the addition made on this count. He relied on the following decisions: 1. Sachin B. Desi Vs. ITO, ITAT Kolkata dt. 07/08/2015. 2. Pinkcity Industries Vs. ITO – Rajasthan High Court, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 290/2010. 3. Smt. B. Subhadra Vs. ITO, 92 ITD 285 (Hyd. 4. ITO Vs. shyam Sunder Jajodia, 26 SOT 541 (Delhi) 5. CIT Vs. Printers House (P) Ltd., 188 Taxman 70 (Delhi) 6. CIT Vs. Siddartha Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Delhi, 08/12/2011. 9. Ld. DR, on the other hand relied on the order of CIT(A). 10. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We observe that assessee had cla…

ITO 18(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SMITA VINOD BHAGWATI, MUMBAI

ITA 6709/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/6709/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-18(2)(1) Smt. Smita Vinod Bhagwati Room No.110, Piramal Chambers Flat No.70, Shivalya,Shivaji Park,…

Jagatram Ahuja v. CGT (92 ITD 285) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax