Rahul Constructions v. DCIT(Pune Trib. Bench B)

146 DTR 73Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#19156 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Judgments citing Rahul Constructions v. DCIT(Pune Trib. Bench B)

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ITO (2016) 181 TTJ 0549: (2016) 142 DTR 0122: (2016) 050 ITR (Trib)0196(Jaipur-Trib) • Surendra S. Gupta Vs. ACIT(2018) 170 ITD 732 (Mum Trib) • Rahul Constructions Vs. DCIT(Pune Trib. Bench B) (2010) 38 DTR 19(Pune)(Trib) • Krishna Enterprises Vs. ACIT(2017) 146 DTR 73(Mum Trib) • ITO Vs. LGW Limited (Kol. Trib) (ITA No. 267/Kol/2013 dt. 07/10/2015 15.3 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no justification in sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of valuation of the property as such the provisions of Section 115BBE were not applicable. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Surat vs. Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 373/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.373/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Shri Dhanesh M. Sanghvi V Circle-3(1), Room No.112, 1Str Floor, Diam Jewels, 7/4155, Sunder S. Anavil Business Center, Adajan Char Rasta, Sadan, Galemandi, Suthar Faliya, Surat Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxps 9521 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Singla– Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 269USection 50CSection 52

…rty adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and the consideration declared by the assessee being less than 10%, and the AO was directed to adopt the value declared by the assessee for computation of Capital Gain. Similar view was taken in Krishna Enterprises 146 DTR 73, Mumbai. 8.For property mentioned at Sl. No. 3 and 4, the ld.AR of the assessee submits that there is a difference of 14.77% and 14.58% in value shown in the documents and the fair market value determined by DVO. The ld AR for the assessee submits that various benches of Tribunal in following cases held that difference up to 15% estimate needs to…

Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, Surat vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mansukhbhai Nanjibhai Bhimani, The Income Tax Officer, Block No.4, Krishna Park Society, Ward-3(1)(5), Surat. Vs Shyam Dham Road, Nan Varachha, Surat – 395006. Pan: Achpb 9761 A Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 56

…rty adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and the consideration declared by the assessee being less than 10%, and the AO was directed to adopt the value declared by the assessee for computation of Capital Gain. Similar view was taken in Krishna Enterprises 146 DTR 73, Mumbai. 8. For property mentioned at Sl. No. 3 and 4, the ld.AR of the assessee submits that there is a difference of 14.77% and 14.58% in value shown in the 6 Shri MansukhbhaiNanubhaiBhimani, Surat. documents and the fair market value determined by DVO. The ld AR for the assessee submits that various benches of Tribunal in following cases held t…