SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. ACIT’, ITA NOS.1450 & 1451(B)/

392 ITR 379High Court2017#20726 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

long term capital gain previous year transfer company business

Judgments citing SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. ACIT’, ITA NOS.1450 & 1451(B)/

Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

…2004-05 which is mentioned in sub para (r) on page 17 of the CIT(A) order. The Id AR also referred to various judgments on the issues of "capital asset vs. stock in trade" and "capital gain vs business income", specifically Bagmane Developers (P) Ltd. [2017] 392 ITR 379 (Karnataka). Decision 14. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and the counter arguments of the Ld. AR of the Assessee and perused the assessment order and the CIT (A) order as well as material referred to before us. We find that the AO has in his order made contradictory observations. On one hand, he has stated that the business of…

ACIT 28 (2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Developers, Navi Mumbai

ITA 30/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)

…2004-05 which is mentioned in sub para (r) on page 17 of the CIT(A) order. The ld AR also referred to various judgments on the issues of "capital asset vs. stock in trade" and "capital gain vs business income", specifically Bagmane Developers (P) Ltd. [2017] 392 ITR 379 (Karnataka). Decision 14. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and the counter arguments of the Ld. AR of the Assessee and perused the assessment order and the CIT (A) order as well as material referred to before us. We find that the AO has in his order made contradictory observations. On one hand, he has stated that the business of…

M/S Futuristic Diagnostic Imaging Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 259/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan .M, CIT DR

Section 234Section 51

…treated as capital gains in the hands of the assessee and the benefits arising thereof needs to be given to assessee. 7. In support of, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the following decisions. Page 8 of 15 i. CIT (Central) v. Bagmane Developers (P.) Ltd [2017] 392 ITR 379 (Karnataka) ii. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) iii. Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd. V. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502 (Madras) iv. CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 578 (Madras) v. CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen [1989] 176 ITR 393 (Madras) vi. CIT v. Raunaq Singh Swaran Singh [1972] 85 ITR 220 (Delhi) vii. Bhogilal H. Pa…

M/S Kemfin Services Pvt Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/70/2011HC Karnataka11 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 88E

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.149 OF 2011 C/W I.T.A.NO.70 OF 2011 ITA NO.149/2011 BETWEEN: M/S KEMFIN SERVICES PVT. LTD. KEMWELL HOUSE, 11, TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 022. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.CHYTHANYA K.K., ADV.,) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE – 11 (5) BANGALORE ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT…