State of Haryana v. Ranbir

5 SCC 167Reported decision2006#9300 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 54Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54esection 13(2)section 55along-term capital assetsection 54ecsection 53asection 53within four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 55circle rate

Judgments citing State of Haryana v. Ranbir

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SH. NARAYANAPPA RAMANNA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs. Shri Narayanappa Ramanna, Circle – 4(1)(1), 1 B, Narayanapur Village, Bengaluru. K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 016. Pan : Afmpr 3833 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. Ganesh S, Advocate. Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ganesh S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

…to say, the general reasons given for the ecision of the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. [Also see `Sate of Haryana v. Ranbir of Rand, (2006) 5 SCC 167 & Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra [2007] 7 SCC 555]. 15. This Court as well as Madras and Delhi High Court have interpreted the expression `a residential house' and have held that the aforesaid expression includes plural. The ratio of the decisions rendered by coordinate bench of this court are binding on us and we respectively agree with th…

DIPTI NALIN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3274/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sonia Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 54Section 54(1)

…say, the general reasons given for the decision or the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. [Also see: 'State of Haryana v. Ranbir @ Rana', [2006] 5 SCC 167 & 'Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra', [2007] 7 SCC 555]. 15. This Court as well as Madras and Delhi High Court have interpreted the expression 'a residential house' and have held that the aforesaid expression includes plural. The ratio of the decisions rendered by coordinate bench of this court are binding on us and we respectively agree with…

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1105/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 Smt.Kempanna Shylaja The Income Tax Officer No.617, Neeru Bhavikempanna Ward 6(3)(1) v. Layout, Guddadahalli Main Road Bengaluru. Hebbal Bengaluru – 560 024. PAN : DGVPS6700R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri L.Maheshkumar, Advocate Respondent by :Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 12.07.2021 Date of Hearing : 06.07.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is dir…

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…say, the general reasons given for the decision or the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. [Also see: 'State of Haryana v. Ranbir @ Rana', [2006] 5 SCC 167 & 'Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra', [2007] 7 SCC 555]. 15. This Court as well as Madras and Delhi High Court have interpreted the expression 'a residential house' and have held that the aforesaid expression includes plural. The ratio of the decisions rendered by coordinate bench of this court are binding on us and we respectively agree with…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…say, the general reasons given for the decision or the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. [Also see: 'State of Haryana v. Ranbir @ Rana', [2006] 5 SCC 167 & 'Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra', [2007] 7 SCC 555]. 15. This Court as well as Madras and Delhi High Court have interpreted the expression 'a residential house' and have held that the aforesaid expression includes plural. The ratio of the decisions rendered by coordinate bench of this court are binding on us and we respectively agree with…

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…say, the general reasons given for the decision or the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. [Also see: 'State of Haryana v. Ranbir @ Rana', [2006] 5 SCC 167 & 'Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra', [2007] 7 SCC 555]. 15. This Court as well as Madras and Delhi High Court have interpreted the expression 'a residential house' and have held that the aforesaid expression includes plural. The ratio of the decisions rendered by coordinate bench of this court are binding on us and we respectively agree with…

SANJIV AHUJA,DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 977/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja,Sr. DR
Section 13(2)Section 54

…ay, the general reasons given for the decision or the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. [Also see: 'State of Haryana v. Ranbir @ Rana', [2006] 5 SCC 167 & 'Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra[2007] 7 SCC 555], 15. This Court as well as Madras and Delhi High Court have interpreted the expression 'a residential house' and have held that the aforesaid expression includes plural. The ratio of the decisions rendered by coordinate bench of this court are binding on us and we respectively agree with t…

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

ITA/25/2011HC Karnataka18 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 54

…, the general reasons given for the decision or the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. [ALSO SEE: ‘STATE OF HARYANA VS. RANBIR’, (2006) 5 SCC 167 & ‘GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA’, (2007) 7 SCC 555]. 15. This Court as well as Madras and Delhi High Court have interpreted the expression ‘a residential house’ and have held that the aforesaid expression includes plural. The ratio of the decisions rendered by coordinate bench of this court are binding on us and we respective…

ITO, WD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PURNA CHANDRA SAHOO, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1344/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1344/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito, Wd-44(1), Kolkata Vs. Purna Chandra Sahoo

For Appellant: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Akash Bansal, FCA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 69B

…ption. The question whether the second proviso is curative and clarificatory did not arise for consideration in Crescent's case, was not debated before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In State of Haryana v. Ranbir, (2006) 5 SCC 167, has discussed the concept of the biter dictum thus: 'A decision, it is well settled, is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. The distinction between a dicta and obiter is well known..Obiter dicta is more or less presumably unnecessary to the decision. It may be an expression of a viewpoint or sentiments…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INTEC CORPORATION, NEW DELHI

ITA 5788/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, S. SeethavaranFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80

…Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad – (1989) 1 SCC 172, Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr. – (2000) 7 SCC 29, BPL India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin – (2002) 5 SCC 167, Xerox Modicorp Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2001 (130 ) ELT 219 (Tri.Del.) and (v) Majestic Auto Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2001 (130) ELT 551 (Tri. Del.) but these judgments are of no support to the case of the assessee because there is not an iota of material on record if simple assembling work of RMPU has been car…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI PURNA CHANDRA SAHOO, KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2734/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194ISection 28Section 29Section 30Section 37Section 40Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2009-10 ITO, Ward-41(1), बनाम / Sri Purna Chandra Sahoo, Poddar Court, 4th Floor, 43B, Bhupen Bose Avenue, V/s. 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 004 Kolkata-1 [PAN No.ARKPS 6458 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Sh. Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 22-09-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 05-10-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D…

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD vs. SOLID & CORRECT ENGG. WORKS

In the result we allow these appeals, set aside orders

C.A. No.-000960-000966 - 2003Supreme Court08 Apr 2010

Bench: We Formulate The Precise Questions That Fall For Our Determination, It Is Necessary To Briefly Set Out The Factual Backdrop In Which The Same Arises. 2. M/S Solid & Correct Engineering Works, M/S Solid Steel Plant Manufacturers & M/S Solmec Earthmovers Equipment Are Partnership Concerns Engaged In The Manufacture Of Parts & Components For Road & Civil Construction Machinery & Equipments Like Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plants & Asphalt Paver Machine Etc. M/S Solex Electronics Equipments Is, However, A Proprietary Concern Engaged In The Manufacture Of Electronic Control Panels Boards. It Is Not In Dispute That The Three Partnership Concerns Mentioned Above Are Registered With Central Excise Department Nor Is It Disputed That The Proprietary Concern Is A Small Scale Industrial Unit That Is Availing Exemption From 2

Section 35L

…n is inclusive in nature and has been understood to mean bringing into existence a new product with a distinct name, character and use. (See (i) Union of India V. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (1977) 1 ELT 199, (ii) BPL India Ltd. V. CCE (2002) 5 SCC 167, (iii) Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. V. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad (1998 (1) SCC 400). 1 13. Mr. Bagaria strenuously argued that even when the setting up of the plant has been held to be tantamount to manufacture of a plant and even when the plant may be machinery covered by Entry 8474 of the First Schedule to the Cent…