S.N.Wadiyar v. CWT

378 ITR 9Supreme Court of India2015#15745 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing S.N.Wadiyar v. CWT

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S Turner Morrison Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee both are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 297/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…. No. 161/KOL/2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 19 of 23 balance payment, the assessee was not in the possession to let out the said property. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Wadiyar (Decd. Through L.R.) –vs.- CIT [378 ITR 9], the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the ld. CIT(Appeals) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue. 21. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material available on record, we find it difficult to uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

WTA/1/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…the Income Tax Authorities from time to time and income tax is being paid by the Assessees. [VIII] They also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Wadiyar (decd. through L.R.) Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax [2015] 378 ITR 9 (SC), wherein under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation fixed under Urban Land Ceiling Act earlier was only `2.00 Lakhs for the entire property and therefore, Valuation could not exceed `2.00 Lakhs for the purpose of Wealth-Tax. [IX] The learned counsel for the Respondent Assess…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Kamakshi Devi

WTA/2/2014HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…the Income Tax Authorities from time to time and income tax is being paid by the Assessees. [VIII] They also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Wadiyar (decd. through L.R.) Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax [2015] 378 ITR 9 (SC), wherein under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation fixed under Urban Land Ceiling Act earlier was only `2.00 Lakhs for the entire property and therefore, Valuation could not exceed `2.00 Lakhs for the purpose of Wealth-Tax. [IX] The learned counsel for the Respondent Assess…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meenakshi Devi Avaru

WTA/6/2015HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 27

…the Income Tax Authorities from time to time and income tax is being paid by the Assessees. [VIII] They also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Wadiyar (decd. through L.R.) Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax [2015] 378 ITR 9 (SC), wherein under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation fixed under Urban Land Ceiling Act earlier was only `2.00 Lakhs for the entire property and therefore, Valuation could not exceed `2.00 Lakhs for the purpose of Wealth-Tax. [IX] The learned counsel for the Respondent Assess…

Shri Dominica F. Gomes, Thane vs. ITO 2(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6516/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6516/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Dominica F Gomes, Income Tax Officer 2(1) Julie Villa, Gomes Street, Room No.29, B Wing, Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Bhayander (W), Thane-401101 Wagle Estate, Thane(W), (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Virag H ShahFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke
Section 50C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं संदीप गोसाई, न्याययक सदस्य के सभऺ BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6516/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Dominica F Gomes, Income Tax Officer 2(1) Julie Villa, Gomes Street, Room No.29, B Wing, Vs. 6th floor, Ashar IT Park, Bhayander (W), Thane-401101 Wagle Estate, Thane(W), (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं/PAN. :AAVPG0814F अपीऱाथी की…

Official Liquidator

OLR/6/2015HC Karnataka10 Feb 2015

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

Section 27

…the Income Tax Authorities from time to time and income tax is being paid by the Assessees. [VIII] They also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Wadiyar (decd. through L.R.) Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax [2015] 378 ITR 9 (SC), wherein under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation fixed under Urban Land Ceiling Act earlier was only `2.00 Lakhs for the entire property and therefore, Valuation could not exceed `2.00 Lakhs for the purpose of Wealth-Tax. [IX] The learned counsel for the Respondent Assess…

S.N.Wadiyar v. CWT (378 ITR 9) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax