Karthik Financial Services Ltd. v. CIT

162 CTR 566High Court2000#19386 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Sections most often in play

Section 54

Judgments citing Karthik Financial Services Ltd. v. CIT

Kamlesh Jain & Sons HUF, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…ent (P) Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (2021) 62 CCH 70 (Kol. Trib.) - Padam Kumar Jain vs. CIT (2020) 59 CCH 209 (Ranchi) - Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs. Pr. CIT (2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del) - Karthik Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT (2019) 55 CCH - ITO vs. K.C. Gopalan (2000) 162 CTR 566 (Ker.) - Yatin Prakash Telang vs. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 705 (Mum.) - Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs. Pr. CIT (2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del.) - Pr. CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express P. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) - Mumbai ITAT in Narayana Tatu Rane vs. ITO – ITA No.2690/Mum/2016 – (2016) 47 CCH 0309 (Mumb. Trib.) - DCIT vs. Kingpin Investment & Finance…

Smt.Manju Mahendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AAFPG2990N None "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri S.K. Bepari-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 08/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 08/10/2018 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date…

Lalit Mohan Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 3678/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2009-10 Lalit Mohan Gupta Vs. Ito, Ward 20(4), D-125, Mahendru New Delhi Enclave, Delhi – 110009 (Pan: Ahtpg3030A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. RS Singhvi, CA & ShFor Respondent: Sh. A. Sreenivasa Rao, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54B

…ty has not been made out of sale proceeds. To support his contention, he relied upon the following case laws:- - CIT vs. R. Srinivasan (2010) 45 DTR 208 (Mad.) - CIT vs. Dr. Ps Pasricha (Bombay High Court) ITA No. 1825 of 2009 - ITO vs. KC Gopalan (2000) 162 CTR 566 (Ker). In view of the above submissions, the Assessee’s counsel has stated that the investment in agriculture land has to be made out of sale proceeds and as such the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 54B for purchase of lands even presuming that payment for purchase of land was not made out of receipt of sale proceeds on sale of a…

Smt. Neelam Handa, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishineelam Handa, Ito, C-7/7, Ground Floor, Ward-20(4), Vs. Model Town-Iii, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abgph5388D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Dharampal Maini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 54Section 54F

…ds on sale for its investment. Since money has no colour, all that is required in compliance with the condition of investment within the specified time. 15. This view is fortified by judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of ITO v. K. C. Gopalan [2000] 162 CTR 566 in which their Lordships have held that in order to get benefit of section 54, there is no condition that the assessee should utilise the sale consideration itself for the purpose of acquisition of new property. In that case, the claim of the assessee was Page 4 of 7 disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that same price was not utilis…