S. Venkat Reddy (2013) 57 SOT 117 (HYD), ITO v. Modipon Ltd.

154 ITD 369Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#13474 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 48Section 54Section 69Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

cost of improvementstamp duty valuesection 48fair market valuenon-residentlong term capital gaintransfercompanyindiasection 14prescribedperson

Judgments citing S. Venkat Reddy (2013) 57 SOT 117 (HYD), ITO v. Modipon Ltd.

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1335/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…on from the date o registration rather than the date of agreement, which the appellant argues should have been used for assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case Law Reference: DCIT /s S. Venkat Reddy (2013) 57 SOT 117 (HYD), ITO V/S Modipon Ltd. (2015) 154 ITD 369 (Delhi) The Learned CIT (Appeal) completely omitted to consider the Grounds raised before him in respect of the Additions which gave birth to confirmation of Arbitrary Additions. For these and other Grounds that shall be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the Learned AO which has been upheld by the CIT (Appeals) may be…

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1334/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…on from the date o registration rather than the date of agreement, which the appellant argues should have been used for assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case Law Reference: DCIT /s S. Venkat Reddy (2013) 57 SOT 117 (HYD), ITO V/S Modipon Ltd. (2015) 154 ITD 369 (Delhi) The Learned CIT (Appeal) completely omitted to consider the Grounds raised before him in respect of the Additions which gave birth to confirmation of Arbitrary Additions. For these and other Grounds that shall be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the Learned AO which has been upheld by the CIT (Appeals) may be…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Meelendra Deependra Singh, Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.4430/Mum/2023 is dismissed

ITA 4430/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer Room No.116, 1St Floor, Meelendra Deependra Singh, G-Block, 503, Pushpakunj, A Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Churchgate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bfaps5402N Assessee By : Shri H.N. Motiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Meshram, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Motiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ce on the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627, order of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Income tax Officer v. Modipon Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 360/154 ITD 369. 13. On a reading of the order passed by the CIT(A), it is interesting to note the report submitted by the Income-tax Simplification Committee set up in 2015, headed by a Former Judge of the High Court, Delhi. 14. Mr. T. Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel is right in a submission that this report is not binding or cannot be taken to have…

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…ce on the following decisions for the proposition that valuation has to be taken on the date on which transaction was agreed upon. a. LahiriPromotorsVs ACIT (ITA 12/Vizag/2009) (Para 12, Pg. 612, Pg. 602-613 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II) b. ITO VsModipon Ltd (154 ITD 369) (T Del) (Para 13, Pg. 618, Pg. 614-628 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II) 110. The Appellant further submits that if more than one fair values are available, the Assessee can choose the valuation. The Appellant places reliance on the decision of Shree Cement Ltd VsAddl CIT (160 TTJ 529) (Jaipur Tribunal) (Para 13, Pg. 638, Pg. 629-648 of Legal Paper…

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh
Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

…ce on the following decisions for the proposition that valuation has to be taken on the date on which transaction was agreed upon. a. LahiriPromotorsVs ACIT (ITA 12/Vizag/2009) (Para 12, Pg. 612, Pg. 602-613 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II) b. ITO VsModipon Ltd (154 ITD 369) (T Del) (Para 13, Pg. 618, Pg. 614-628 of Legal Paper Book, Vol. II) 110. The Appellant further submits that if more than one fair values are available, the Assessee can choose the valuation. The Appellant places reliance on the decision of Shree Cement Ltd VsAddl CIT (160 TTJ 529) (Jaipur Tribunal) (Para 13, Pg. 638, Pg. 629-648 of Legal Paper…

Bellandur Chikkagurappa Jayaramreddy, Bengaluru vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1322/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(47)(v)Section 234BSection 50C

…ce on the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 75 taxmann.com 141/161 ITD 627, order of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Income tax Officer v. Modipon Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 360/154 ITD 369. 13. On a reading of the order passed by the CIT(A), it is interesting to note the report submitted by the Income-tax Simplification Committee set up in 2015, headed by a Former Judge of the High Court, Delhi. 14. Mr. T. Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel is right in a submission that this report is not binding or cannot be taken to have…

White Rose Holdings (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7395/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 White Rose Holdings (India) Pvt.Ltd. Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor C/O. Mandhania & Associates Vs. 6-A Pil Court Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 111, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan Aaacw0478K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55A

…wala [2014] 43 taxmann.com 133( Delhi). 7. On the point that the valuation as on the date of execution of MOI date 18.12.2003 be adopted, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions; (1)Sanjeev Lal [2014]365 ITR 389(SC), (2)Modipon Ltd [2015] 154 ITD 369 (Delhi Tribunal), (3)Dharmsibhai Soni [2016] 161 ITD 627 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) and (4)Chalasani Naga Ratna Kumari (ITA No. 639/Vizag/2013 ( Vishakhapatnam Tribunal) 15 ITNo.7395/Mum/2017 8. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the authorities below. The ld DR further submits that the assessee has raised certain new…

S. Venkat Reddy (2013) 57 SOT 117 (HYD), ITO v. Modipon Ltd. (154 ITD 369) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax