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

247 ITR 210High Court2001#4411 most cited

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

When the Supreme Court decides an issue, the orders of the authorities below merge with the order of the Supreme Court. This applies to appeals before the Supreme Court.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2025.

Also referred to as

V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT · Supreme Court · merger of orders · appellate authority · finality of decision · section 250 · section 143(3) · section 142(1) · section 133(6)

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

Jamipol Ltd, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT, Jamshedpur

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

ITA 68/RAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Prasad, CIT(A), ld.Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 68/Ran/16 A.Y 2011-12 I.T.A No. 69/Ran/16 A.Y 2012-13 M/s. Jamipol Ltd PAN:AAACJ7475R Appellant Vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Jamshedpur Respondent For the Appellant : Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent : S/Shri Sanjay Prasad, CIT(A), ld.Sr.DR Sanjay Malik, JCIT, ld.DR Date of hearing : 26-02-2018 Date of pronouncement : 01-03-2018 ORDER Per Bench: Above two appeals by the Assessee are against the separate orders dt. 18-12…

ITO, Jamshedpur vs. Smt. Veena Pandey, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 106/RAN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Invoking 69, The Following Condition Must Be Satisfied:-

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kr. Saraiwala, CA, ld.AR
Section 234BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 106/Ran/16 A.Y 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward 3(3), Jamshedpur Appellant Vs. Smt. Veena Pandey, Jamshedpur Respondent For the Appellant : Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld.DR For the Respondent : Shri Binod Kr. Saraiwala, CA, ld.AR Date of hearing : 27-02-2018 Date of pronouncement : 01-03-2018 ORDER Per Bench: This appeal by Revenue is against the order dt. 22-01-2016 of CIT(A), Jamshedpur for the assessment year 2008-09, wherein he deleted the additio…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur vs. M/S- Anand Vihar Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd., Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/RAN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Hon’Ble Supreme Court By Way Of A Slp Which Was Dismissed By Holding That There Is No Merits In The Appeal Vide Its Order Dt. 01-08-2000. The Ld. Dr Could Not Controvert The Same.

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.AR
Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 159/Ran/2015 A.Y 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jamshedpur Appellant Vs. M/s. Anand Vihar Promoters & Developers PAN: AAFCA8771J Respondent For the Appellant : Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld.DR For the Respondent : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.AR Date of hearing : 22-02-2018 Date of pronouncement : 28 -02-2018 ORDER Per Bench: This appeal by Revenue is against the order dt. 28-09-2015 of CIT(A), Jamshedpur for the assessment year…

K.B. J Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6365/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 131Section 68

…urt. Authority for the proposition is available in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur and more recently in Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao . The Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Smt. Tej Kumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 210 has pithily made a distinction between the dismissal in liming of an SLP and the dismissal of a regular civil appeal by a non-speaking order. The view was that in the former it would not be possible to extract any expression on the legal position on the part of the Court. 5. This analysis, however, does not lead to the consequence that the conun…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/119/2002HC Delhi22 Jan 2010
Section 143Section 208Section 234Section 234B

…direction to charge interest under Section 234B, levy of interest was not permissible under the provision in view of the judgment of Patna High Court in the case of CIT v.Ranchi Club Limited, 222 ITR 44 affirmed by the apex court in Smt. Tejkumari v. CIT, 247 ITR 210. Other reason for deleting the interest was that 2010:DHC:405-DB the assessee held bona fide belief that no advance tax was payable under Section 208 of the Act. 6. Mr. Sahni, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that interest under Section 234B was chargeable on account of non- deposit of the advance tax, which was compe…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Tek Chand

ITA/154/2002HC Delhi21 Aug 2002
Section 156Section 23Section 234Section 234ASection 260A

…order levying interest. This.view has been upheld by the Apex Court in Ranchi Club Ltd.. (s'upra). It is pertinent to note that a ful1Bench of the Patna High Court in SnitJe.j....Kumar .. Q.r......... s ..o.mmisio... of ncpine Tax . Qr s.., (2001) 247 ITR 210 has again reiterated the view taken by the Diviion Benches in the afore-noted cases. Admittedly, in the present case there is no direction in the assessment order for charging of L. interest under Section 23.4A/ 2348 of the Act. '1.- In view of the afore-notéd authoritative pronouncements, no question of law, much less a substantial…

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. Gold Tex Furnishing Industries

ITA/80/2002HC Delhi21 Aug 2002
Section 156Section 234ASection 234B

…levying interest. This view has been upheld by the Apex Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra), It is pertinent to note that a full Bench of the Patna High Court inSm .t..Tè.j....Kumar .. .r .........•s .çm mks..sb . ner........ o.f. Income .Tax&Ors., (2001) 247 ITR 210 has again reiterated the view taken by the Division Benches in the afore-noted cases. Admittedly, in the present case there is. no direction in the assessment order for charging of interest underSection 234A, 234B of the Act. In view of the afore-noted author itativ pronouncements, no question of law, much loss a substantial question o…