M/s Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Ltd. v. State of Haryana

304 ITR 1Supreme Court of India#12634 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing M/s Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Ltd. v. State of Haryana

ACIT 28 (2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. M/S NEEL SIDDHI DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 30/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

…ra) is inapplicable while calculating holding period u/s. 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held and observed as under: The AO relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Ltd vs State of Haryana 304 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that transfer of an immovable property is effective only from the date on which it is registered with the Sub…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI V.MADHUSUDHAN

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

ITA/124/2014HC Karnataka24 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 55Section 8

…l Rules, and whether - 3 - or not the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the computation of Agricultural Income as made by the Central Officer under the Central Income Tax Act, as laid down by the Supreme Court in 69 ITR 667, 248 ITR 567 and 304 ITR 1 and by our High Court in the case of M/s.Balanoor Plantation and Industries Limited in Writ Petition Nos.4320 to 4322/2009? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the re-computation of the Agricultural Income under Section 8 of the K.A.I.T Act, by the Assessing Officer, is illegal and without jurisdiction? 4.…

ASHUTOSH V. JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5122/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer - Mr. Ashutosh V. Jhaveri 259, 17(1)(2), Room No 116, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Shroff Chambers, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bazaar Gate Street, Mumbai- Bhavan,M.K. Road, 400001. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Abapj2406L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Ashutosh V. Jhaveri Income Tax Officer - 259, 2Nd Floor, Shroff Vs. 17(1)(2), Room No 116, Chambers, Bazaar Gate 1St Floor, Aayakar Street, Mumbai-400001. Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Abapj2406L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr.Raveev Gubgotra & Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Drs Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Choksi, Ar Last Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Raveev Gubgotra & Mr
Section 143(3)

…the date of registration of the agreement and accordingly it was held that the said asset was ‘short term capital asset’. Thereafter, the AO relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana 304 ITR 1 (SC) held that the transfer of an immovable property is effective only from the date on which it is registered with the Sub-…

ITO 17(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASUTOSH V. JHAVERI, MUMBAI

ITA 4837/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer - Mr. Ashutosh V. Jhaveri 259, 17(1)(2), Room No 116, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Shroff Chambers, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bazaar Gate Street, Mumbai- Bhavan,M.K. Road, 400001. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Abapj2406L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Ashutosh V. Jhaveri Income Tax Officer - 259, 2Nd Floor, Shroff Vs. 17(1)(2), Room No 116, Chambers, Bazaar Gate 1St Floor, Aayakar Street, Mumbai-400001. Bhavan,M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Abapj2406L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr.Raveev Gubgotra & Mr. Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, Drs Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Choksi, Ar Last Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Mr.Raveev Gubgotra & Mr
Section 143(3)

…the date of registration of the agreement and accordingly it was held that the said asset was ‘short term capital asset’. Thereafter, the AO relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana 304 ITR 1 (SC) held that the transfer of an immovable property is effective only from the date on which it is registered with the Sub-…

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CONTEMPORARY INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 715/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…all holds that the said amount involved salary payment of Rs.3,28,648/- not coming under Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules. Coming to the balance payments, we find that the CIT(A) quotes the hon’ble apex court’s decision in Union of India vs Belgachia Tea Co. Ltd. 304 ITR 1 (SC) that tea leaves are agricultural produce giving rise to agricultural income only. Learned Departmental representative fails to dispute that Rule 6DD(e)(i) itself excludes payment made for agricultural produce from the rigor of section 40A(3) of the Act. We therefore uphold the CIT(A) findings qua the second issue. 8. Learned Departmental Repr…

SMT LATHA H M vs. DR RAVINDRANATH H M

In the result, the petition stands dismissed

RPFC/124/2014HC Karnataka27 Apr 2018

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

Section 55Section 8

…l Rules, and whether - 3 - or not the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the computation of Agricultural Income as made by the Central Officer under the Central Income Tax Act, as laid down by the Supreme Court in 69 ITR 667, 248 ITR 567 and 304 ITR 1 and by our High Court in the case of M/s.Balanoor Plantation and Industries Limited in Writ Petition Nos.4320 to 4322/2009? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the re-computation of the Agricultural Income under Section 8 of the K.A.I.T Act, by the Assessing Officer, is illegal and without jurisdiction? 4.…

ACIT 32(2), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN G. GADHIA, MUMBAI

ITA 4021/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar: (A.Y : 2010-11) Acit 30(2) Vs. Shri Kiran G Gadhia Pratyakshkar Bhavan Flat No.305 / 306 R.No.202, 2Nd Floor 3Rd Floor, Sanjay Apartment Bkc, Bandra (E) B Wing, Mandapeshwar Road Mumbai – 400 051 Borivali (W) Mumbai – 400 092 Pan : Aabpg8511D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S S Bist प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Respondent By : Shri Haridas Bhat सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2017 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-44, Mumbai Dated 18.03.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3).

For Appellant: Shri S S BistFor Respondent: Shri Haridas Bhat
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50Section 54Section 54F

…od from the date of registration of the agreement and accordingly it was held that the said asset was ‘short term capital asset’. The AO relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Ltd vs State of Haryana 304 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it was held that transfer of an immovable property is effective only from the date on which it is registered with the Sub…

ANITA D. KANJANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 23(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2291/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 2

…od from the date of registration of the agreement and accordingly it was held that the said asset was ‘short term capital asset’. The AO relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Ltd vs State of Haryana 304 ITR 1 3 (SC) wherein it was held that transfer of an immovable property is effective only from the date on which it is registered with the Sub…

M/s Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Ltd. v. State of Haryana (304 ITR 1) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax