Sivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

88 ITR 311High Court1973#21517 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 7(1)section 52section 158bdcircle ratefull value of considerationsection 48section 69bsection 260aon-moneysection 50csection 50

Judgments citing Sivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

The Dy. Commissioner Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 673/ASR/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv., Pradeep
Section 69

…the 'full value of the consideration' declared by the assessee simply because another portion of land has been sold by the assessee along with his brother at a higher rate," iv) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 311 (Mad) has held:- "The burden of proving that certain sales were effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of tax on capital gains is on Revenue and it is not enough in the explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable and there are strong suspicion as to the real motive, which prompted the assessee to sell the assets. There must…

The Dy. Commissioner Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 672/ASR/2014[201-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv., Pradeep
Section 69

…the 'full value of the consideration' declared by the assessee simply because another portion of land has been sold by the assessee along with his brother at a higher rate," iv) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 311 (Mad) has held:- "The burden of proving that certain sales were effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of tax on capital gains is on Revenue and it is not enough in the explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable and there are strong suspicion as to the real motive, which prompted the assessee to sell the assets. There must…

The Dy. Commissioner Income-Tax, Jammu vs. M/S. Horizon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Jammu

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 671/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DRFor Respondent: S/Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv., Pradeep
Section 69

…the 'full value of the consideration' declared by the assessee simply because another portion of land has been sold by the assessee along with his brother at a higher rate," iv) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 311 (Mad) has held:- "The burden of proving that certain sales were effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of tax on capital gains is on Revenue and it is not enough in the explanation offered by the assessee was not acceptable and there are strong suspicion as to the real motive, which prompted the assessee to sell the assets. There must…

ITO 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Saturn Advisory Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 802/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/S Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aajcs2674N

Section 143(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2), M/s Saturn Advisory Room No. 518A, Services Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 44, Strategic House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mint Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) PAN No.:-AAJCS2674N Shri V. Justin-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri…

Sivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (88 ITR 311) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax