Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Mohan Lal Ram Niwas Huf, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 9 April, 2018

Meena Ramesh Jain, Mumbai vs Ito 19 (2)(3), Mumbai on 13 July, 2021

It is further made clear that if the assessee seeks to restore the appeal in the event of assessee's declaration made under Vivaad se Vishwas scheme is not accepted by the Revenue, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delayed communication of outcome under Vivaad se Vishwas scheme in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) v. ACIT in T.C.A. 8 ITA NO. 6615 & 6616/MUM/2019 (2014-15) Meena Vijay Jain & Meena Ramesh Jain No. 372 of 2020 dated 16.10.2020. With these observations these appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ajay Raychand Nensee, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 28 July, 2021

It is further made clear that if the assessee seeks to restore the appeal in the event of assessee's declaration made under Vivaad se Vishwas scheme is not accepted by the Revenue, the Registry shall not insist for filing of application for condonation of delay, if the Miscellaneous Application for recalling the order is filed beyond time on account of delayed communication of outcome under Vivaad se Vishwas scheme in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) v. ACIT in T.C.A. No. 372 of 2020 dated 16.10.2020. With these observations this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), ... on 25 March, 2022

In similar circumstances, in the case of Shri M.R. Anandaram (HUF) v. ACIT (supra), the Tribunal observed that though the said land was converted for non-agricultural purposes, but cultivation of land continued till the date of sale of the land. Thus, the land should have been treated as agricultural land and exempt from capital gain in view of section 2(14) of the Act. The Tribunal also observed that even after conversion, the assessee was carrying on agricultural operations and conversion was done only to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non-agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 47 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), ... on 21 June, 2022

In similar circumstances, in the case of Shri M.R. Anandaram (HUF) v. ACIT (supra), the Tribunal observed that though the said land was converted for non-agricultural purposes, but cultivation of land continued till the date of sale of the land. Thus, the land should have been treated as agricultural land and exempt from capital gain in view of section 2(14) of the Act. The Tribunal also observed that even after conversion, the assessee was carrying on agricultural operations and conversion was done only to facilitate the sale of subject property to a corporate entity/non-agriculturist. These observations of the Tribunal have been extracted in the earlier part of this order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sudha Loyalka, New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 18 July, 2018

4. The ld. AR reiterated the contention made in the grounds of appeal and also reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). He also submitted case laws compilation which contains 145-431 pages and relied thereon alongwith the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Satpal & Sonsd (HUF vs. ACIT passed in ITA No. 388/Del/2015 dated 29.8.2017 and another paper book containing 1-144 pages having the copies of the accounts of the assessee etc. etc. The ld. AR further submitted that lower authorities failed in making aggregate addition of Rs. 3,50,94,758/- on the alleged ground that sundry creditors were not proved as genuine and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principle of natural justice. He further submitted that the lower authorities also wrongly made the addition in dispute on the alleged ground that sundry creditors were not proved as genuine which is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Shri Raja Ram Patidar, Bhopal vs The Ito 1(2), Bhopal on 28 September, 2018

19. We have carefully gone through the clauses of Development Agreement and find that [under Clause 6 dealing with 'RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEVELOPER: it has been specifically provided that the Developer (i.e. GPL) was granted mere 'licence' to enter upon the property and that by itself should not be construed as part performance of an agreement under 16 Raja Ram Patidar ITA No.371/Ind/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or u1s 2(47)(v) of Income-tax Act, 1961. The DA also provides under Clause 14 (b) that the Owners (i.e. assessee) shall continue to be in possession of entire property to be developed In this respect, reliance can be placed on the order of the Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in the case of R. Gopinath (HUF) v ACIT 133 TTJ 595. We also find that the A.O. has wrongly invoked provisions of section 2(47))v) of the Act because it deals with contracts of part performance referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 59 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Syed Meer,Bangalore vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(2)(1), ... on 17 October, 2025

3. The Bangalore ITAT, in case of M. R. Seetharam (HUF) Vs ACIT in I.T.A No. 1654/BANG/2012 held that "Where it was observed that it is in compliance with the state laws that the Assessee is forced to convert his agricultural land to non-agricultural land before selling it to a corporate. Had the state Land Reform Act permitted the Assessee to sell his agricultural land without conversion to a corporate as in the case of other state, it would not than be required to get the land converted, and the gain arising from such sale could not have been exigible to Capital Gain tax. Even after conversion of the land, cultivation of land till the date of sale was continued unabated and as such, the land should have been treated as agricultural land, thus exempt from Capital Gain in view of Sec. 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next