Smt. KrishnabaiTingre v. ITO

101 ITD 317Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#18574 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Smt. KrishnabaiTingre v. ITO

Vijay Kumar Seth, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 33(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 5244/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Vijay Kumar Seth, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 8, Vasant Enclave, Tax, Circle-33(1), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxps6514Q Assessee By : Sh. Karan Kumra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 55A

…venue by the judgment in the case of Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. Joint CIT reported in [2004] 91 ITD 429 (Mum) (TM). Further, the assessee also covered by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, the case of Smt. KrishnabaiTingre v. ITO reported in [2006] 101 ITD 317 (Pune) wherein it has been held that reference to the DVO can only be made in cases where the value of capital asset shown by the assessee is less than its fair market value of land as on April 1, 1981, shown by the assessee on the basis of the approved valuer's report being more than its fair market value, reference under section 55A was not val…

ITO, WD-3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Pioneer Iron & Steel Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 203/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.203/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward-3(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Pioneer Iron & Steel Corporation (P) Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 4Th Floor, 6, Tarachand Ganguly Street, Howrah – Chowringhee Sq., Kolkata – 700 069. 711202. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcp 6093 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri R. K. Patodi, FCA

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 55A

…. Jt. CIT (2005) 97 TTJ (Mumbai)(TM) 698 : (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mumbai)(TM). Further the assessee also covered by the Third Member (sic) decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, the case of the Smt. KrishnabaiTingre vs. ITO (2006) 103 TTJ (Pune) 216 : (2006) 101 ITD 317 (Pune) wherein it has been held that reference to DVO can only be made in cases where the value of capital asset shown by the assessee is less than its fair market value of land as on 1st April, 1981 shown by the assessee on the basis of approved valuer's report being more than its fair market value, reference under s. 55A was not valid. Respectf…

Vivina Co Op Hsg Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4872/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am M/S Vivina Co. Op Hsg Society Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rg 15(2) Ltd. Vs. S.V. Rd, Andheri (W), Mumbai Mumbai-400 058 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaaav2507L Assessee By .. Surji D. Chheda, Ar Revenue By .. B.S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 05-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 05-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 50CSection 55A

…ssee and against the Revenue by the judgment in the case of Rubab M.Kazerani reported in 91 ITD 429 (Mum(TM). Further the assessee also covered by the Third Member decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, the case of Krishnabhai Tingore Vs. ITO reported in 101 ITD 317 (Pune) (TM) wherein it has been held that reference to DVO can only be made in cases where the value of capital asset shown by the assessee is less than its fair market value of land as on 1st April, 1981 shown by the assessee on the basis of approved valuer’s report being Page 8 of 13 M/s Vivina Co. Op HSG Society Ltd; AY:05-06 more than its fai…

Shubha Vichare, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1124/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1124/Mum/2013 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Smt.Shubha Vichare बिाम/ Income Tax Officer, No.7, Varuna Defence Office Ward 19(2)(4), Vs. Society, Linking Road, Mumbai. Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400054 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Adtpv4719M अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms.Tasneem Varawala प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.112015 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :13.1.2016 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Tasneem VarawalaFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje

Section 55ASection 80I

…of his contention, he placed reliance on the following case law: a) CIT V/s Puja Prints (2014)360 ITR 697 (Bom) b) CIT V/s Daulal Mohta HUF, ITA No.1031 of 2008 c) DCIT V/s Chaturbhuj Vallabhdas (HUF) (2011) 130 ITD 230 d) Smt Krishnabai Tingre V/s ITO (2006) 101 ITD 317 (Pune) e) Ms.Rubab M Kazerani V/s JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 f) Vijaykumar M Shah V DCIT (2010) 2 ITR 116 g) Smt Amiya Bala Paul V CIT (2003) 262 ITR 407. He therefore prayed that the long term capital loss claimed by the assessee be allowed. 4. On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the valuation report submitted by the assessee has no legal ba…