T Vs. Nayan Builders & Developers (2015) 231 Taxman 665 (Bom) (iii) CIT v. S.M. Construction

264 CTR 577High Court2014#24094 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Judgments citing T Vs. Nayan Builders & Developers (2015) 231 Taxman 665 (Bom) (iii) CIT v. S.M. Construction

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1502/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Superfine Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna, Nehru Sahakar Marge, jaipur. बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle6, Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALCS0201P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assess…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…lowing case laws:- (i) CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Nayan Builders & Developers (2015) 231 Taxman 665 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs. S.M. Construction (2015) 233 Taxman 263 (Bom) (iv) CIT Vs. Petals Engineers P. Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 577 (Bom) (v) CIT Vs. Nalin P. Shah (HUF) (2013) 85 CCH 132 (Bom) (vi) CIT Vs. Laresen & Toubro Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 502 (Bom) P a g e | 20 ITA No.5767/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Shah Rukh Khan (vii) DIT vs. Administrator of the Estate of Late Mr. E.F. Dinshaw (2013) 218 Taxman 125 (Bom) (Mag) (viii) Sesa Resources…

Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. P.N. Amersy (HUF), Mumbai

ITA 2383/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-DR

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 55

…s,that it was a debatable issue,that rejection of a legal claim would not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty.He relied upon the cases of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158); S.M. Constructions (233 taxman 263);Petals Engineers (P) Ltd.(264 CTR 577);Nalin P. Shah (ITXA(LOD)49 of 2013; Administrator of the Estate of Late Mr. E.F. Dinshaw (218 Taxman 125) and Rucha Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (90 CCH 232). 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee had received Rs.4.60 Crores from two parties for surrendering its rights in a property,that the d…