M/s. Kajrani v. DCIT

9 ITD 429Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#25820 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 45(2)section 72section 2(47)section 45section 50clong term capital gainsfair market valuesection 133long term capital gainsection 133asection 13transfer

Judgments citing M/s. Kajrani v. DCIT

Kohinoor Textiles Printing Works, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT WD 22(1), Mumbai

ITA 2836/MUM/2013[203-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Kohinoor Textiles Asst. Commissioner Of Income Printing Works, Tax, M/S. J.J. Mehra & Co., Ward-22(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 11 Laxmi Building, 2Nd Floor, Off. Turner Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aaafk2198P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 08 . 2022

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R
Section 2Section 45

…e arguments and submissions of ld. A.R of the appellant as well as the contents of the impugned assessment order. I find force in the arguments of the ld. AR. of the appellant. The facts and circumstances are same as were in the same of M/s. Kajrani Vs. DCIT (9 ITD 429 Mumbai) to the extent that the valuation from a registered valuer as on 1/4/81 was furnished by the appellant before the Assessing Office along with return. Hence, the appellant's case is squarely covered by the ratio of Hon'ble ITAT (supra) and there is no justification in disturbing the valuation of the appellant as on 1/4/81. Accordingly, the ld…

Kohinoor Textiles Printing Works, Mumbai vs. DCIT WD 22(1), Mumbai

ITA 2514/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Kohinoor Textiles Asst. Commissioner Of Income Printing Works, Tax, M/S. J.J. Mehra & Co., Ward-22(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 11 Laxmi Building, 2Nd Floor, Off. Turner Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aaafk2198P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 08 . 2022

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R
Section 2Section 45

…e arguments and submissions of ld. A.R of the appellant as well as the contents of the impugned assessment order. I find force in the arguments of the ld. AR. of the appellant. The facts and circumstances are same as were in the same of M/s. Kajrani Vs. DCIT (9 ITD 429 Mumbai) to the extent that the valuation from a registered valuer as on 1/4/81 was furnished by the appellant before the Assessing Office along with return. Hence, the appellant's case is squarely covered by the ratio of Hon'ble ITAT (supra) and there is no justification in disturbing the valuation of the appellant as on 1/4/81. Accordingly, the ld…

Kohinoor Textile Printing Works, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 22(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 3923/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Kohinoor Textiles Asst. Commissioner Of Income Printing Works, Tax, M/S. J.J. Mehra & Co., Ward-22(1), Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 11 Laxmi Building, 2Nd Floor, Off. Turner Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aaafk2198P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12 . 07 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25 . 08 . 2022

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Kapadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh, D.R
Section 2Section 45

…e arguments and submissions of ld. A.R of the appellant as well as the contents of the impugned assessment order. I find force in the arguments of the ld. AR. of the appellant. The facts and circumstances are same as were in the same of M/s. Kajrani Vs. DCIT (9 ITD 429 Mumbai) to the extent that the valuation from a registered valuer as on 1/4/81 was furnished by the appellant before the Assessing Office along with return. Hence, the appellant's case is squarely covered by the ratio of Hon'ble ITAT (supra) and there is no justification in disturbing the valuation of the appellant as on 1/4/81. Accordingly, the ld…

M/s. Kajrani v. DCIT (9 ITD 429) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax