Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM)

294 ITR 196Reported decision2007#3806 most cited

What is Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM) authority for?

A transaction involving the transfer of property, even if not a sale in the conventional sense, can fall under the definition of 'transaction' as contemplated in Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. This includes situations where consideration is received in the form of built-up area under a development agreement.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Rubab M Kazerani v JCIT · Jasbir Singh Sarkaria · Section 2(47)(v) · transaction · development agreement · capital gains · consideration · built-up area · transfer of property

Judgments citing Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM)

NALAPAD PROPERTIES ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE

ITA 1297/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, ITP &For Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 45

…ITA Nos.1297/Bang/2024 & SP 33/Bang/2024 Nalapad Properties, Bangalore ITA No.1298/Bang/2024 & SP 34/Bang/2024 Nalapad Hotels and Convention Centre, Bangalore Page 2 of 93 M/s. Nalapad Hotels and Convention Centre M/s. Guruswamy and Associates No.311, 1st Floor 10th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar Bangalore 560 011 Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(3) Bangalore RESPONDENT PAN NO : AAEFN5563D APPELLANT Appellant by : Sri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Sri Ravikiran M., A.R. Respondent by : Shri Kiran D., D.R. Date of Hearing 30.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 16.08.2024 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by…

MR. ANTHONY P LEWIS,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1813/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe &For Respondent: Smt Sailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54

…clearly fell under the definition of 'transaction' as contemplated in Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. In this regard, she placed reliance on the following decisions/judgments - CIT Vs. Harbour View : [2019) 102 taxmann.com 185(Kerala) and Jasbir Singh Sarkaria : 294 ITR 196 (AAR-New Delhi)/(2007) 164 taxman 108 (AAR- New Delhi) 6.4.5. As regards, judgment cited by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant, she submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd (supra) is not applicable to the case of the Appellant because the Hon’ble Supreme Court ha…

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2791/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 269USection 41(1)Section 53A

…f section 45, the gain shall be the deemed income of the year of transfer of the capital asset. It shall not be out of context, at this juncture, to mention an observation of the Authority for Advance Rulings in the case of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria, In re [2007] 294 ITR 196/164 Taxman 108 (AAR-New Delhi), that the expression used in section 45 is 'arising', which cannot be equated with the expression 'received' or even with the expression 'accrued' as being used in the statute. The point which deserves notice is that the amount or the consideration settled may not be fully received or may not technically accrue but…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. PANYAM CEMENT & MINERAL INDUSTRIS LIMITED , NANDYAL

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

ITA 1963/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 53A

…. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions: (a) Chaturbu] Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs C1T(Bom) 260 ITR 491 (b) Dyaneswar N Mulik Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani Vs JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM) 91 ITD 429 (d) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria in RE(AAR) 294 ITR 196 5. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing”. 4. Ld.Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution process took place and the NCLT, Amaravati Bench vide order dt.25-06-2021 accepted :- 4 -: ITA Nos.1039 & 1963/Hyd/2018 C.O.No.41/Hyd/2018 the resolution plan dt.19-05-20…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. PANYAM CEMENTS & MINERAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NANDYAL

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

ITA 1039/HYD/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 53A

…. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions: (a) Chaturbu] Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs C1T(Bom) 260 ITR 491 (b) Dyaneswar N Mulik Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani Vs JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM) 91 ITD 429 (d) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria in RE(AAR) 294 ITR 196 5. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing”. 4. Ld.Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution process took place and the NCLT, Amaravati Bench vide order dt.25-06-2021 accepted :- 4 -: ITA Nos.1039 & 1963/Hyd/2018 C.O.No.41/Hyd/2018 the resolution plan dt.19-05-20…

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…argument that market value of the transferred capital asset [asset that ‘goes out’] should be adopted as full value of consideration in such cases had been disapproved by the Supreme Court. 3.27 The Authority for Advance Ruling in Jasbir Singh Sakaria In re 294 ITR 196 has observed that under an usual development agreement the developer constructs on the owner's land and hands over a part of the built up area to the owner as consideration. 3.28 The learned AR submitted that the development agreement entered by the assessee is a typical development agreement wherein the assessee has agreed to construct on the l…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 4793/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. K. N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 DLF Limited JCIT DLF Centre, (9th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi PAN No.AAACD3494N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT Vs. DLF Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACD3494N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel , CA Respondent by Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR Date of hearing: 14/08/2…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4187/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. K. N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 DLF Limited JCIT DLF Centre, (9th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi PAN No.AAACD3494N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT Vs. DLF Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi PAN No. AAACD3494N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. R. S. Singhvi, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel , CA Respondent by Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR Date of hearing: 14/08/2…

RIMJHIM GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms

ITA 116/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.116/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cuke Smt. Rimjhim Gupta The Ito Vs. B-101, Jawahar Enclave, Jawahar Nagar Ward- 6 (1), Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 3466 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Anil Kaushik, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajender Singh, Addl. Cit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07 /08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 30-11-2015 For The Assessment Year 2009-10, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2.1 The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Decline The Exemption Claimed U/S 54 Of The Act In Respect Of Capital Gains Earned On Sale Of Property Which Was Reinvested In The New House Property.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kaushik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajender Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 53ASection 54

…5 Smt. Rimjhim Gupta vs ITO, Ward- 6(1), Jaipur assessee and seeing the delay the assessee was given possession before the registration of the sale deed of the flat to the assessee to avoid any dispute over that issue. In the case of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria, 294 ITR 196 (AAR-New Delhi), it is observed that ‘’to attract sub-clause (v) of section 2(47), it is not necessary that entire sale consideration upto the last instalment should be received by owner, it was also laid down that on a fair and reasonable interpretation and on adopting principle of purposive construction, it can be said that possession contem…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2126/DEL/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DLF Limited, v. The Addl. Commissioner DLF Centre, (9th Floor), of Income Tax, Range- Sansad Marg, 10, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD 3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2749/DEL/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of v. DLF Limited, Income Tax, Circle-0, DLF Centre, (9th Floor), New Delhi. Sansad Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD 3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R.S. Singhvi…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2126/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Rai, Adv. Special counsel
Section 10Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2126/DEL/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 DLF Limited, v. The Addl. Commissioner DLF Centre, (9th Floor), of Income Tax, Range- Sansad Marg, 10, New Delhi. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD 3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2749/DEL/2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner of v. DLF Limited, Income Tax, Circle-0, DLF Centre, (9th Floor), New Delhi. Sansad Marg, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACD 3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri R.S. Singhvi…

K T DONGRE & CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4733/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S. K.T. Dongre & Co. P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1) C/O. Shyam Malpani & Assocaites Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 307, Chartered House Vs. Mumbai 400020 297/299, Dr. C.H. Street Mumbai 400002 Pan – Aaack9366J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Gopal Respondent By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-21, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2013 & It Relates To A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: - “1. The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred As "Cit (A)") Has Erred Confirming The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Making Addition Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,90,67,850/- Based On Agreement For Sale Dated 12.10.2007 Entered Into With M/S. Nensee Construction Pvt. Ltd. Inspite Of The Fact That There Is No Performance On The Part Of The Concerned Parties In Relation To The Such Agreement Of Sale. Therefore, There Is No Transfer Or Deemed Transfer Within The Meaning Of Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Question Of Taxing Such Capital Gains Which Had Not Been Accrued Or Deemed To Had Been Accrued Does Not Arise. Such Long Term Capital Gain Has Been Worked Out By Considering The Sale Consideration At Rs.5,34,02,500/- As Against Agreement Price Of Rs.1,80,00,000/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Utter Disregard To The Pending Litigations I.E. The Company Petition No.809 Of 2003 Filed By An Alleged Creditor For Winding Up Of The Assessee Company & Also A Cloud In The Title Due

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…fer of asset under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act or under section 2(47)(v) of the Act. It was submitted that the AO had made additions by relying upon the ruling of the Authority of Advance Ruling in the assessee of Jasbir Singh Sarkarial (2007) 294 ITR 196. 8. On the other hand, the learned D.R. relied upon the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the written submissions and judgement submitted by the respective parties and the material placed on record as well as orders passed by the Revenue authorities. From the record we find that the ass…

G BHOOPATHI REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1951/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Narasimham, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54F

…the Transfer of Property Act were fulfilled on 11-08-2008 as per the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) and (vi). AO also relied on the following decisions: (i) Chaturbhuj Dwaraka Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom); (ii) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (Advance Ruling) (294 ITR 196); (iii) Dr.T.Achutha Rao Vs. ACIT (106 ITD 388) (Hyd); (iv) K.Jeelani Basha Vs. CIT (256 ITR 0282) (Mad-HC); :- 3 -: I.T.A. No. 1951/Hyd/2017 2.1. AO held that transfer took place in the financial year relevant to AY. 2009-10 and worked out the capital gains as under: Rs. Value of development agreement 1,77,61,100 land owner’s share 88,80,45…

T. RAJESWAR RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1592/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-op…

T. BALAKRISHNA (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1591/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-op…

T. NAGRAJ (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1590/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-op…

T. JAYA PRAKASH (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1589/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-op…

T. KASHINATH (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1588/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-op…

T. ASHOK KUMAR (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1587/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-op…

T. NARSIMHA RAO (HUF),SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1586/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…s. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer in AY 2010-11. 6.2 He submitted that re-op…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM) (294 ITR 196) — Cited in 31 Judgments | BharatTax