Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v. CIT

370 ITR 386High Court#20652 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 45(2)section 145(1)section 14(1)section 211section 2(47)(v)section 145(2)section 52section 53aproject completion methodsection 53section 34(1)

Judgments citing Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…92BB of the Act. The following case laws affirm the above proposition of law. • CIT v/s. Norton Motors 275 ITR 595 (P&H); • CIT v/s. Harinder Kaur 310 ITR 71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68 DTR (All) 112 • Manish Prakash Gupta v/s. CIT [(2012)…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…92BB of the Act. The following case laws affirm the above proposition of law. • CIT v/s. Norton Motors 275 ITR 595 (P&H); • CIT v/s. Harinder Kaur 310 ITR 71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68 DTR (All) 112 • Manish Prakash Gupta v/s. CIT [(2012)…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…92BB of the Act. The following case laws affirm the above proposition of law. • CIT v/s. Norton Motors 275 ITR 595 (P&H); • CIT v/s. Harinder Kaur 310 ITR 71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68 DTR (All) 112 • Manish Prakash Gupta v/s. CIT [(2012)…

ACIT, 23(3), Mumbai vs. Richard Duggan Cooper, Mumbai

ITA 4782/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54E

…rom the date of transfer of asset. 4. The CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Coramandal Industries Ltd 370 ITR 386 (Mad), observed that plain reading of provisions of section 54EC(1) and also the CBDT circular dated 12-02- 2008 creates a primary impression that the statute is mainly referring to investment and not deduction while elaborating about the ceiling limit of Rs.50 lakhs. It also creates an impression that the reference to the financial year is with…

Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v. CIT (370 ITR 386) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax