V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT

247 ITR 210High Court2001#4416 most cited

What is V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee cannot claim deduction under section 54F if they do not solely own the property at the time of sale, as ownership is a prerequisite for claiming the deduction. This principle applies even after amendments to section 54F regarding ownership of one house.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2025.

Also referred to as

V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT · section 54F · ownership of property · deduction · capital gains tax · date of transfer · long term capital asset · full value of consideration · indexed cost of acquisition

Also reported as

114 Taxmann 404

Sections most often in play

Section 54FSection 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 45Section 48Section 49(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)long-term capital assetdate of transfersection 54findexed cost of acquisitionfull value of considerationsection 54section 45section 32section 115jsection 234blong term capital gain

Judgments citing V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

ITA 341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

…e Id Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. [2009] 104 taxmann.com 25/262 Taxman 279 (SC) [Civil Appeal No. 2432/2019] ii. ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT [2001] 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) 18. The Id Counsel further submitted that Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 299/209 Taxman 628 wherein it was held that where the 10 assessee held the property jointly with her husband in equal proportion, it cannot be said that she is the owner of the house property…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…gment by the Supreme Court in the favour of the revenue. The ld Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. – Civil Appeal No. 2432/2019 ii. Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210 (Patna HC) 18. The ld Counsel further submitted that Hon`ble Madras High Court in case of Dr. (Smt.) P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan Vs. CIT (2012) 23 taxmann.com (299) wherein it was held that where the assessee held the property jointly with her husband in equal proportion, it cannot be said that she is the owner of the house property at the time of…

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…gment by the Supreme Court in the favour of the revenue. The ld Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. – Civil Appeal No. 2432/2019 ii. Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210 (Patna HC) 18. The ld Counsel further submitted that Hon`ble Madras High Court in case of Dr. (Smt.) P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan Vs. CIT (2012) 23 taxmann.com (299) wherein it was held that where the assessee held the property jointly with her husband in equal proportion, it cannot be said that she is the owner of the house property at the time of…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2835/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisandwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

…. The Id Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. [2009] 104 taxmann.com 25/262 Taxman 279 (SC) [Civil Appeal No. 2432/2019] ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT [2001] 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) 18. The Id Counsel further submitted that Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 299/209 Taxman 628 wherein it was held that where the assessee held the property jointly with her husband in equal proportion, it cannot be said that she is the owner of the house property at…

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 368/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, 254, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. ……………. Appellant PAN – AAQPN4090H v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, ……………. Respondent (OSD), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri M.G.Moryani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 27/06/2024 Date of Order – 27/06/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 18/10/…

M/S PALLIPURAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO NON CORP WARD 2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, and it’s stay petition, dismissed as infructuous

ITA 322/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Alan P Dev, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 154Section 156Section 234ASection 234A(1)

…ing, it stands abundantly clarified that the matter admits of no two views; the charging of interest u/s.234A, as indeed u/ss. 234B and 234C, mandatory and compensatory in nature, is automatic. Decisions, holding to the contrary, viz. Tej Kumari v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 210 (Pat) (FB); CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 44 (Pat), do not represent good law. That being the case, the AO has no discretion in the matter. His failure, therefore, in not issuing the direction to charge interest in the assessment order, is to no consequence, and clearly a mistake, rectifiable u/s. 154. Finally, we consider the aspect of…

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3528/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 250Section 54F

…. The Id Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. [2009] 104 taxmann.com 25/262 Taxman 279 (SC) [Civil Appeal No. 2432/2019] ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT [2001] 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) 18. The Id Counsel further submitted that Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 299/209 Taxman 628 wherein it was held that where the assessee held the property jointly with her husband in equal proportion, it cannot be said that she is the owner of the house property at…

MUKESH ARVINDLAL VAKHARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(3), SURAT

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

…gment by the Supreme Court in the favour of the revenue. The ld Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. – Civil Appeal No. 2432/2019 ii. Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210 (Patna HC) 18. The ld Counsel further submitted that Hon`ble Madras High Court in case of Dr. (Smt.) P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan Vs. CIT (2012) 23 taxmann.com (299) wherein it was held that where the assessee held the property jointly with her husband in equal proportion, it cannot be said that she is the owner of the house property at the time of…

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 165/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court as has been held in the following judgments : i. V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd v. CIT (2000) 110 Taxman 67/243 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) iii. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government Of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211 iv. CIT v. Tejaji Farasram [1953] 23 ITR 412/AIR 1954 Bom 93(Bombay HC) v. CIT v. Amritlal Bhogila & Co [1958] 34 ITR 130/1958 AIR 868, 713(SC) vi. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 (SC) vii. Kunhayammed v. State Of Kerala [2000] 11…

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 164/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

…issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court as has been held in the following judgments : i. V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd v. CIT (2000) 110 Taxman 67/243 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) iii. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government Of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211 iv. CIT v. Tejaji Farasram [1953] 23 ITR 412/AIR 1954 Bom 93(Bombay HC) v. CIT v. Amritlal Bhogila & Co [1958] 34 ITR 130/1958 AIR 868, 713(SC) vi. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 (SC) vii. Kunhayammed v. State Of Kerala [2000] 11…

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 162/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court as has been held in the following judgments : i. V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd v. CIT (2000) 110 Taxman 67/243 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) iii. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government Of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211 iv. CIT v. Tejaji Farasram [1953] 23 ITR 412/AIR 1954 Bom 93(Bombay HC) v. CIT v. Amritlal Bhogila & Co [1958] 34 ITR 130/1958 AIR 868, 713(SC) vi. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 (SC) vii. Kunhayammed v. State Of Kerala [2000] 11…

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 161/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

…issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court as has been held in the following judgments : i. V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd v. CIT (2000) 110 Taxman 67/243 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) iii. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government Of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211 iv. CIT v. Tejaji Farasram [1953] 23 ITR 412/AIR 1954 Bom 93(Bombay HC) v. CIT v. Amritlal Bhogila & Co [1958] 34 ITR 130/1958 AIR 868, 713(SC) vi. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 (SC) vii. Kunhayammed v. State Of Kerala [2000] 11…

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 160/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court as has been held in the following judgments : i. V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd v. CIT (2000) 110 Taxman 67/243 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) iii. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government Of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211 iv. CIT v. Tejaji Farasram [1953] 23 ITR 412/AIR 1954 Bom 93(Bombay HC) v. CIT v. Amritlal Bhogila & Co [1958] 34 ITR 130/1958 AIR 868, 713(SC) vi. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 (SC) vii. Kunhayammed v. State Of Kerala [2000] 11…

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 159/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court as has been held in the following judgments : i. V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd v. CIT (2000) 110 Taxman 67/243 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) iii. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government Of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211 iv. CIT v. Tejaji Farasram [1953] 23 ITR 412/AIR 1954 Bom 93(Bombay HC) v. CIT v. Amritlal Bhogila & Co [1958] 34 ITR 130/1958 AIR 868, 713(SC) vi. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 (SC) vii. Kunhayammed v. State Of Kerala [2000] 11…

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 156/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court as has been held in the following judgments : i. V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd v. CIT (2000) 110 Taxman 67/243 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) iii. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government Of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211 iv. CIT v. Tejaji Farasram [1953] 23 ITR 412/AIR 1954 Bom 93(Bombay HC) v. CIT v. Amritlal Bhogila & Co [1958] 34 ITR 130/1958 AIR 868, 713(SC) vi. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 (SC) vii. Kunhayammed v. State Of Kerala [2000] 11…

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 153/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court as has been held in the following judgments : i. V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd v. CIT (2000) 110 Taxman 67/243 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) iii. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government Of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211 iv. CIT v. Tejaji Farasram [1953] 23 ITR 412/AIR 1954 Bom 93(Bombay HC) v. CIT v. Amritlal Bhogila & Co [1958] 34 ITR 130/1958 AIR 868, 713(SC) vi. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 (SC) vii. Kunhayammed v. State Of Kerala [2000] 11…

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 152/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

…issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court as has been held in the following judgments : i. V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd v. CIT (2000) 110 Taxman 67/243 ITR 383 (SC) ii. Smt. Tej Kumari v. CIT (2001) 114 Taxman 404/247 ITR 210 (Patna) (FB) iii. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government Of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 211 iv. CIT v. Tejaji Farasram [1953] 23 ITR 412/AIR 1954 Bom 93(Bombay HC) v. CIT v. Amritlal Bhogila & Co [1958] 34 ITR 130/1958 AIR 868, 713(SC) vi. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 (SC) vii. Kunhayammed v. State Of Kerala [2000] 11…

M/S BIJAY KUMAR SANTOSH KUMAR ,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 78/RAN/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 May 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.78/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Bijay Kumar Santosh Kumar Vs. Ito, Ward-(1)2, Dhanbad Bata More, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 1219 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Dated 24.01.2018 Passed In First Appeal No.16/Dhn/2013-14 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Disallowance Of Remuneration/Commission Paid To The Partners Smt. Manju Devi Drolia & Smt. Sangeeta Drolia. Remuneration Was Paid As Per Deed Of Partnership & Is An Allowable Expenditure. Disallowance As Confirm By Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal & Incorrect. Both Were Working Partners Of The Firm. Nothing On Record Was Bought By Ld. A.O. To Contradict This Fact. As Such. Disallowance Made Is Unjustified & Illegal. 2. For That The Consultancy Charges Were Paid, To M/S H. K. Drolia & Company (Chartered Accountant) For Providing Consultancy Charges During The Year Under Consideration. The Same Has Been Paid In Past & Future & No Disallowance Was Made.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, रााँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, RANCHI श्री चन्द्र मोहन गगग, न्द्याययक सदस्य के समऺ । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.78/RAN/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/s Bijay Kumar Santosh Kumar Vs. ITO, Ward-(1)2, Dhanbad Bata More, Jharia, Dhanbad-828111 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACFB 1219 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mondal, ACIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of He…

ITO EXEMPTION WARD , JAMSHEDPUR vs. ALL INDIA WOMEN'S CONFERENCE , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 230/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 215Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.230/Ran/2017: Assessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer Vs. All India Women’s (Exemption), Ward, Conference (Golmuri Jamshedpur Constituent Branch), Mahila Sharan, Telco Colony, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR No.AAATA 3977 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) ITA Nos.314/Ran/2016: Assessment Year : 2012-13 ITA Nos.238/Ran/2017: Assessment Year : 2013-14 All India Women’s Vs. Income Tax Officer Conference (Golmuri (Exemption), Ward, Constituent Branch), Mahila Jamshedpur Sharan…

PRASHANT KUMAR SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WD-2(1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 131/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 144Section 44Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.131 & 132/Ran/2017 Assessment Years :2009-2010 & 2011-12 Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur 34, Balajee Nagar, Chhota Govindpur, Jamshedpur PAN/GIR NoAKXPS 8880 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT Date of Hearing : 26/11/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/11/ 2018 O R D E R These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the CIT(A), Jamshedpur, both dated 21.2.2017 for the assessm…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT (247 ITR 210) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax