Sumit Bhattacharya v. ACIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

112 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#22023 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 365,591 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Judgments citing Sumit Bhattacharya v. ACIT Circle 16(1), Mumbai

Sri B V S Murthy vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/397/2010HC Karnataka19 Feb 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 260Section 260A

…the appellant is an employee of WLC. It ought to have been appreciated that the decisions rendered in KANU KUMAR MUKERJEE VS. ACIT 23 SOT 565 (ITAT, MUMBAI), AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULINGS DECISION REPORTED IN 235 ITR 565, SUMIT BHATTACHARYA VS. ACIT 112 ITD 1 (ITAT MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH) have no application to the facts of the case. It is further submitted that under Section 4(1)(ii) of the Companies Act, a company shall be subsidiary company of a holding company if, but only if the holding company holds more than 50% of its equity capital. Admittedly, WLC did not hold 50% shares of IDBL. Therefo…

Add. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat V. Patel

Accordingly, these are hereby dismissed leaving

C.A. No.-004380-004380 - 2018Supreme Court24 Apr 2018

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Being No. Cab/I643/20002001. After Considering The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals), Vide Order Dated 28.03.2002, Dismissed The Appeal Of The Respondent After Comprehensively Discussing The Taxability Of The Alleged Amount & Upholding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iii)

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4380 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24888 OF 2015) Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax .... Appellant(s) Versus Bharat V. Patel .... Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No. 4381 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25001 OF 2015 J U D G M E N T R.K.Agrawal, J 1) Leave granted. 2) These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Tax Appeal Nos. 6 and 14 of 2004…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Sri. Pramod H. Lele, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeals are dismissed

ITA 5581/MUM/2004[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5581/Mum/2004 & 3691/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2004-05) Asst. Cit, Room No. 447, Pramod H. Lele, बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 5/7, Chandrashekhar Co-Op Soc., Mumbi-400 020 Swami Nityanand Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapl 6012 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ganesh Bare ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.07.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Two Appeals By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xi, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Arising Out Of Separate Orders, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2002-03 & 2004-05. 2. The Only Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal Is The Taxability Of The Gain On The Transfer Of Sweat Equity Shares During The Relevant Previous Years Allotted To The Assessee. While The Revenue Seeks To Bring The Entire Gain To Tax As Short-Term Capital

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh BareFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 56

…lly necessary for us to deal with other aspects of the matter.’ 6 ITA Nos. 5581/M/04 & 3691/M/05 (A.Ys. 2002-03 & 2004-05) Asst. CIT vs. Pramod H. Lele In so holding, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Summit Bhattacharya vs. Asst. CIT [2008] 112 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB) and Shripad S. Nadkarni (in ITA No. 4698/Mum/2004 dated 20.01.2009). The assessee’s reliance on the decision in Bomi S. Billimoria vs. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 2120/Mum/1998 dated 30.06.2009), a subsequent decision, was also met by it (refer paras 15-19 of its order). The assessee has also before us relied on several decisions by the tribun…