K R Palanisamy v. Union of India

306 ITR 61High Court2008#12601 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 260fair market valuesection 24commissioner (appeals)long term capital gainsection 26section 154section 271(1)(c)transfersection 15section 143india

Judgments citing K R Palanisamy v. Union of India

Nanag Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 1398/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Issuing The Notice U/S 148. The Action Of The Ld. Ao Was Illegal & Therefore Deserves To Be Quashed Or Set Aside. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

…should be considered for deduction under Section 54F is incorrect in law. 14 ITA NO. 1398/JP/2024 SHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR As per settled principles laid down in: Raj Babbar v. ITO (ITA No. 6497/Mum/2011) • CIT v. K.R. Palanisamy (2008) 306 ITR 61 (Madras HC) the investment for claiming exemption under Section 54F must be evaluated with reference to the net consideration as defined under Section 50C, when the deemed consideration exceeds the declared sale consideration. The reliance placed by the assessee on Nand Lal Sharma v. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) is distinguishable on facts and does not overr…

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…/2013 (A.Y. 2004-05) M/s. Sanofi India Ltd value adopted by the stamp authority for the purpose of stamp duty payment. In this regard, reference is being made to the decision of Hon. Madras HC in the case of K R Palanisamy vs Union of India reported in (2008) 306 ITR 61 (Mad) upholding the constitutional validity of Sec 50C. On pursuing the case report, it will be observed that the Hon. Madras HC while upholding the constitutional validity of Sec 50C, has noted that the section 50C itself provides for the safeguard to the assessee in as much in a situation like your appellant, where it is urged that the stamp dut…

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

…/2013 (A.Y. 2004-05) M/s. Sanofi India Ltd value adopted by the stamp authority for the purpose of stamp duty payment. In this regard, reference is being made to the decision of Hon. Madras HC in the case of K R Palanisamy vs Union of India reported in (2008) 306 ITR 61 (Mad) upholding the constitutional validity of Sec 50C. On pursuing the case report, it will be observed that the Hon. Madras HC while upholding the constitutional validity of Sec 50C, has noted that the section 50C itself provides for the safeguard to the assessee in as much in a situation like your appellant, where it is urged that the stamp dut…

White Rose Holdings (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7395/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 White Rose Holdings (India) Pvt.Ltd. Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor C/O. Mandhania & Associates Vs. 6-A Pil Court Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 111, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan Aaacw0478K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55A

…yderabad Trib.), (3) Green Field Hotels & Estates (ITA No. 735 of 2014) (Bom. HC), (4) Shri Atul G. Puranik (ITA No. 3051/Mum/2010 (Mum Trib.), (5) Tej Singh [2012] 138 ITD 489 (Agra Trib.), (6) K.P. Varghese [1981] 7 TAXMAN (SC), (7) K.R. Palanisamy [2008] 306 ITR 61 (Madras HC), (8) Khoobsurat Resorts (211 taxman 510 (Del.HC) and (9) Hanuman Prasad Generiwala [2014] 43 taxmann.com 133( Delhi). 7. On the point that the valuation as on the date of execution of MOI date 18.12.2003 be adopted, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions; (1)Sanjeev Lal [2014]365 ITR 389(SC), (2)Modipon Ltd [2015]…

Pratap Ratan Das, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1272/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1272/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Rizwan
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 68

…t evasion of tax and under- valuation of the transaction and must be read in that context. The classification made by section sac is in respect of an identifiable group of assesses and is not arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. (K.R. Palanisamy vs. UOI 306 ITR 61 (Mad) followed. The Hon'ble Special Bench of Jurisdictional IT AT Mumbai, had also upheld the applicability of section 50C for depreciable assets/ business assets, in case of ITO vs. United Marine Academy (date of order 25.4.2011) in following words. “There are two deeming fictions created in section 50 and section 50C for computing capital gain…

ACIT RG 25(3), Mumbai vs. Dattani Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 5075/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5075/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Acit – 25(3), M/S Dattani Development, बनाम/ C-11, R. No. 308, 100, Shreeji Darshan, V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, 1St Floor, S.V. Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Kandivali (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 067. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabfd4969Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Miss Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 5O

…en for the purpose of gain on sale of land. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that the land is held as stock-in-trade. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K.R. Palaniamy v. Union of India reported in (2009) 306 ITR 61 (Mad.). The assessee further submitted that the assessee is in the business of development of property of every description of land and other real estate property. The partnership firm is carrying on the above business since 1980 and has been assessed to tax as such and the Revenue has accepted the contentions of the assessee and whenever the asse…

CIT vs. Khoobsurat Resorts Pvt Ltd

ITA/776/2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 143Section 68

…nt from the above provision that a presumption that the sale price is higher can be drawn, if the circumstances spelt out in Section 50-C are fulfilled. This provision was challenged before the Madras High Court, in K.R.Palanisamy v. Union of India, [2008] 306 ITR 61 (Mad). The Court repelled the challenge, but nevertheless held that: “Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50C provides further safeguard to the assessee, in the sense that if the assessee claims before the assessing officer that the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities exceeds the fair market value and the value so adopted or assesse…

CIT vs. Khoobsurat Resorts Pvt Ltd

ITA - 776 / 2011HC Delhi05 Nov 2012
Section 143Section 68

…nt from the above provision that a presumption that the sale price is higher can be drawn, if the circumstances spelt out in Section 50-C are fulfilled. This provision was challenged before the Madras High Court, in K.R.Palanisamy v. Union of India, [2008] 306 ITR 61 (Mad). The Court repelled the challenge, but nevertheless held that: “Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50C provides further safeguard to the assessee, in the sense that if the assessee claims before the assessing officer that the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities exceeds the fair market value and the value so adopted or assesse…

K R Palanisamy v. Union of India (306 ITR 61) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax