NITI Trust and Others v. CIT

221 ITR 435Reported decision#23699 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing NITI Trust and Others v. CIT

Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 407/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…nition of person u/s. 2(31) of the Act did not specify any specific No.1 and others 211 ITR 575, that of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust 188 ITR 224, that of Gujarat High Court in the case of NITI Trust and Others vs. CIT 221 ITR 435, that of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly paid employees 271 ITR 159, that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri. Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 and that of Apex Court in the case of C.R. Nagappa vs. CIT 73 ITR 626, assessee trust had to be treated as a representative assessee having the status of…

Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 406/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…nition of person u/s. 2(31) of the Act did not specify any specific No.1 and others 211 ITR 575, that of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust 188 ITR 224, that of Gujarat High Court in the case of NITI Trust and Others vs. CIT 221 ITR 435, that of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly paid employees 271 ITR 159, that of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri. Krishna Bandar Trust 201 ITR 989 and that of Apex Court in the case of C.R. Nagappa vs. CIT 73 ITR 626, assessee trust had to be treated as a representative assessee having the status of…

Balgopal Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5661/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash K. JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri. N.P. Singh
Section 161Section 54Section 54F

…y F. Cama vs. CIT 237 ITR 82. He further submitted that decision by other High Courts also support the assessee’s case. For this proposition Ld. Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Niti Trust And Ors. vs. CIT 221 ITR 435. Ld. Counsel further reliance upon CBDT direction dated 01.08.2012 6. Per contra Ld. D.R submitted that these cases are not applicable. He submitted that these case laws are with reference to the applicability of Section 161 of the Income Tax Act. However the issue before us is regarding special provisions relating to Section 54F of the I.T Act.…

NITI Trust and Others v. CIT (221 ITR 435) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax