Tatia Skyline & Health Farms Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

70 ITD 387Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1999#16127 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 50c(2)section 55 circle rate date of transfer stamp duty value section 50c section 50 fair market value transfer prescribed section 250 document

Judgments citing Tatia Skyline & Health Farms Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…ross negligence is not entitled to indulgence being shown. In this context, I would like to make a reference to a decision of the Chen- nai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tatin Skyline & Health Farms Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 66 TTJ (Chennai) 203 (1999) 70 ITD 387 Chennai). In this decision, on the assessee’s request that the case be sent back to the AO for another round of enquiry and fresh assessment in accordance with law, the Bench, rejecting the assessee’s request has held that the remand order should be made in very rare and exceptional case, for example, if at original stage, patently grave error was…

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

MOHAMMED KHALID MASUD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-33, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 171/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Khalid Masud……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 70, Karaya Road, Circus Row Kolkata - 700019. [Pan:Afapm6677G] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 389 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Further Supported By An Affidavit Of The Petitioner Namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…oss negligence is not entitled to indulgence being shown. In this context, I would like to make a reference to a decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tatia Skyline & Health Farms Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Chennai) 203 : (1999) 70 ITD 387 (Chennai). In this decision, on I.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammed Khalid Masud the assessee's request that the case be sent back to the AO for another round of enquiry and fresh assessment in accordance with law. the Bench, rejecting the assessee's request has held that the remand order should be made in very rare and excep…

SHRI MOHD. ILYAS ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6174/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…oss negligence is not entitled to indulgence being shown. In this context, I would like to make a reference to a decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tatia Skyline & Health Farms Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Chennai) 203 : (1999) 70 ITD 387 (Chennai). In this decision, on the assessee’s request that the case be sent back to the AO for another round of enquiry and fresh assessment in accordance with law. the Bench, rejecting the assessee’s request has held that the remand order should be made in very rare and exceptional case, for example, if at original stage, patently grave error wa…

ITO, WARD- 41(1), NEW DELHI vs. AASTHA GOEL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 6005/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 41(1), Aastha Goel, New Delhi. 28/42, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Mrs. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80CSection 80T

…accordingly submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. She also relied on the following decisions in support of the case of the assessee :- (i) Tata Skyline And Health Farms Ltd. vs. ACIT, 70 ITD 387. (ii) ITO vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta, [2011] 43 SOT 32. (iii) DCIT vs. Rohtas Projects Ltd., 282 ITR 42. (iv) ACIT, Anima Investment Ltd., 247 ITR 22. (v) Raj Kumar Jain vs. ACIT, 208 ITR 22. 14. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find the assessee in the instant case had join…

ITO 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DARSHAN REALTORS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4009/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-6(2)(2), M/S Darshan Realtors R. No.562, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ M. K. Road, Churchgate, Omakar House, Off Vs. Mumbai-400020 Eastern Highway, Opp.Sion, Chunnabhatti Siugnal Sion (East), Mumbai-400022 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aadcd4673N C.O. No.299/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4009/Mum/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Darshan Realtors Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd. 6(2)(2), बनाम/ Omakar House, Off Eastern R. No.562, Aayakar Vs. Highway, Opp.Sion, Bhavan, Chunnabhatti Signal Sion M. K. Road, Churchgate, (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400022 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aadcd4673N

Section 133(6)Section 37Section 53Section 54Section 73

…ge-111 (rejoinder to the remand report). Reliance was placed upon the decision of the third member in the case of ACIT vs Anima Investment Ltd. [2000] (73 ITD 12(TM)(Del.) and Tatia Skyline & Health Farms Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (1999) 70 ITD 387 (Chennai). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as, the ground raised by the Revenue allowing the deduction of Rs.24,21,00,000/-, being the amount of compensation paid to Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., is concerned, the facts, in brief, are that the assessee company was incorporated on…