Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer

298 ITR 268High Court2008#10741 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

legal expensessection 24(b)house property incomesection 33cost of improvementshort term capital gainssection 48interest u/s 234ashort term capital gainlong term capital gainsconcealment of incomesection 234a

Judgments citing Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…visor salary of Rs.6,25,000/- it is submitted that it is paid to Prahladbhai Lilabhhai Raval. The appellant has relied upon following judgments in support of his contention:- I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 5 298 ITR 268 (Karn) Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer 241 CTR 364 (Mad.) V. LAKSHMIREDDY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v/s. Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v/s. ITO 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT V/s. Eagle Theater 137 TTJ 307 (Del) Praveen Gupta v/s. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. 62 ITR 657 (GUG) CIT vs. Anilaben…

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…visor salary of Rs.6,25,000/- it is submitted that it is paid to Prahladbhai Lilabhhai Raval. The appellant has relied upon following judgments in support of his contention:- I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 5 298 ITR 268 (Karn) Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer 241 CTR 364 (Mad.) V. LAKSHMIREDDY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v/s. Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v/s. ITO 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT V/s. Eagle Theater 137 TTJ 307 (Del) Praveen Gupta v/s. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. 62 ITR 657 (GUG) CIT vs. Anilaben…

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…visor salary of Rs.6,25,000/- it is submitted that it is paid to Prahladbhai Lilabhhai Raval. The appellant has relied upon following judgments in support of his contention:- I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 5 298 ITR 268 (Karn) Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer 241 CTR 364 (Mad.) V. LAKSHMIREDDY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v/s. Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v/s. ITO 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT V/s. Eagle Theater 137 TTJ 307 (Del) Praveen Gupta v/s. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. 62 ITR 657 (GUG) CIT vs. Anilaben…

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…visor salary of Rs.6,25,000/- it is submitted that it is paid to Prahladbhai Lilabhhai Raval. The appellant has relied upon following judgments in support of his contention:- I.T.A Nos. 2281/Ahd/2016, 511/Ahd/2018,1075 &1076/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 5 298 ITR 268 (Karn) Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer 241 CTR 364 (Mad.) V. LAKSHMIREDDY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v/s. Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v/s. ITO 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT V/s. Eagle Theater 137 TTJ 307 (Del) Praveen Gupta v/s. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax. 62 ITR 657 (GUG) CIT vs. Anilaben…

G VIJAY PADMA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 3295/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaismt. G Vijay Padma, No.206, 1St Floor, 10Th D Main, 5Th Cross, 1St Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011 Pan Abcpv 8123E ….Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Bengaluru. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri P. R. Mathad, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri P. R. Mathad, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54F

…he Ld. AR placed reliance on the following judgements for the proposition that the expenditure incurred for the purpose of eviction and compensation paid to take the complete possession of the property are all admissible expenditure: Mrs. June Perett Vs. ITO 298 ITR 268 (Kar) V. Jagamohan Rao & Others Vs CIT 75 ITR 373(SC) Sitalpur Sugar Works Ltd Vs CIT 49 ITR 160(SC) 9 5.10 The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and also considered various orders cited by the parties. The first contention of the AR is that the impugned land…

DCIT 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1799/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

For Appellant: Shri A Mohan, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…e assessee has to be allowed. In support of such contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: - CIT v. R. Ramanathan Chettiar (152 ITR 489) (Madras High Court) CIT v. Shankuntala Kantilal (190 ITR 56) (Bom.HC) Mr. June Perrett V. ITO (298 ITR 268) (Kar. HC) CIT vs. Dr. P Rajendran (127 ITR 810) (Kerala HC) 45. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, though, it may be a fact that the factual aspect of the issue has not been properly verified in the earlier stages, however, various issues have not been properly explained by the assessee either. He submitted, since, the issue invo…

ACMEVAC PUMPS & ENGG. PVT. LTD.,THANE vs. ACIT - 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5155/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48(1)

…137 ITR 846 (Mad) CIT v A Venkataraman & Ors. 160 ITR 840 (Del) CIT v Shankuntala Rajeshwar 234 ITR 95 (AP) Naozar Chenoy v CIT 359 ITR 644 (Mad) CIT v Spencers and Co. Ltd 242 ITR 582 (Bom) CIT v Miss Piroja C Patel 205 Taxman 449 (Del) CIT v Eagle Theatres 298 ITR 268 (Kar) Mrs. June Perrett v ITO 87 TTJ 273 (Mum-Trib) Ketan Bolonjkar v ACIT 35 ITD 285 (Mum-Trib) Chimanlal Paper Co. P Ltd. v ITO 5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR strongly supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.DR submitted that the lower authorities has brought out clear facts to the effect that compensation paid by the assessee is not for…

SHRI DEV SUMAN SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR

…. 90 lakhs only of which the 50% share i.e. Rs. 45 Lakhs has been correctly shown by the assessee to compute the capital gains. Reliance was placed by the A.R. on case of CIT vs Miss Piroja C Patel (2000) 242 ITR 582 (Bom.) and Mrs. June Perrett vs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 268 (Kar.) and Naozar Chenoy vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 95 (AP). The AO discussed and distinguished all the three cases in the case of Miss. Piroja C Patel, the assessee had sold land to the BMC which was having hutments over there. In that case giving vacant possession of the land to BMC was a condition precedent under the terms of the negotiation-cum-…

ITA 1287/2011 vs. EAGLE THEATRES

ITA/1287/2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011
Section 260A

…avour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Issuance of certified copy expedited.” 9. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer, (2008) 298 ITR 268(Kar), has held that payment to execute an order of eviction and to evict an unauthorized occupant can be treated as cost of improvement, inter alia, observing as under: “Then the last question to be considered by us is, whether the amount spent by the executors to secure an order of eviction to evict unauthorised occupant 2011:DHC:6578-DB…

CIT vs. EAGLE THEATRES

ITA - 1287 / 2011HC Delhi21 Dec 2011
Section 260A

…avour of the assessee and against the Department. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Issuance of certified copy expedited.” 9. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court in Mrs. June Perrett v. Income-tax Officer, (2008) 298 ITR 268(Kar), has held that payment to execute an order of eviction and to evict an unauthorized occupant can be treated as cost of improvement, inter alia, observing as under: “Then the last question to be considered by us is, whether the amount spent by the executors to secure an order of eviction to evict unauthorised occupant 2011:DHC:6578-DB…