Rahul G. Patel v. DCIT

173 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#19509 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 120Section 129Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 234A

Judgments citing Rahul G. Patel v. DCIT

Danish Sheikh, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

…nish Sheikh section, and for this proposition, reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the coordinate benches: i. CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran (2020) 429 ITR 97 ii. Shrimati Rekha Agarwal, 38 NYPTTJ 895 (Raipur) iii. Rahul G. Patel. v. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 1 iv. Dharamshibhai Sonani v/s ACIT 181 TTJ (Ahd) 721 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities and has submitted that since there was no agreement to sell, mere issuance of allotment letter cannot be considered as the agreement envisaged in the first and second proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act…

Valukko Infrastrusture Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

…nish Sheikh section, and for this proposition, reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the coordinate benches: i. CIT v. Vummudi Amarendran (2020) 429 ITR 97 ii. Shrimati Rekha Agarwal, 38 NYPTTJ 895 (Raipur) iii. Rahul G. Patel. v. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 1 iv. Dharamshibhai Sonani v/s ACIT 181 TTJ (Ahd) 721 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities and has submitted that since there was no agreement to sell, mere issuance of allotment letter cannot be considered as the agreement envisaged in the first and second proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act…

Nawal Kishore Kandelwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical properties

ITA 4928/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…y the Finance Act 2016 ,w.e.f. 01/04/2017 , the Tribunal in following decisions has construed the proviso as clarificatory in nature and can be applied on pending matters. (i). Amit Bansal vs. ACIT, 174 ITD 349 (Delhi Tribunal) (ii). Rahul G. Patel vs. DCIT 173 ITD 1 (Ahd. Tribunal) (iii). Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT, 161 ITD 627 (Ahd. Trib) (iv). Smt. Chalasani Naga Ratna Kmari vs. ITO, 79 taxmann.com 104 (Vishakhapatnam-Trib) (v). ITO vs. Aastha Goel 67 ITR Trib. (S.N.) 49 (Delhi-Trib) 5. The LD DR, on hand, submitted that no agreement for the sale of the property prior to date of the registration was file…

Metal Extrusion India Ltd, Jaipur vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.163/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke M/S. Metal Extrusion India Ltd. The Addl. Cit Vs. 36A, Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines Circle – 1 Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm 3410 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 50CSection 60C

…Act. As regards retrospective operation of proviso to section 50C of the Act, the ld.AR has relied on the following decisions. 1. Amit Bansal vs ACIT, Central Circle, Karna, [2019] 174 ITD,349 (Delhi Trib) 2. Rahul G Patel vs DCIT, Circle 1(2), Baroda [2018] 173 ITD 1 (Ahemdabad Trib). 3. Dharamashibhai Sonani vs ACIT, Circle -, 9, Surat [2016] 161 ITD 627 (Ahemdabad Trib) 4. Smt. Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari vs ITO, Ward- 3(2), Visakhapatnam [2017[ 79 taxmann.com 104 (Visakhapatnam Trib) 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that proviso to Section 50C was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01-0…

Rahul G. Patel v. DCIT (173 ITD 1) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax