Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Cental) vs Smt.Neena Jain C/O M/S Sweety Fabrics ... on 19 February, 2010

Dcit Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs Anupama P Jain, Mumbai on 6 October, 2017

Asst. CIT vs. Smt. Anupama P. Jain "6.1 The construction of the provisions of Explanation 5 put-forth by Ld. DR on the basis of aforementioned instruction no.1882 are totally contrary to the aforementioned decision of Hon'ble Madras High court and the aforementioned decisions of other Benches of ITAT. These instructions are issued by CBDT on 5.6.1991 when the decision rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court is dated 9.12.2003. During the course of hearing Ld CIT DR was required to place on record any decision of any court in which the view conveyed by the CBDT in aforementioned Instruction No.1882 is adopted, he was unable to cite any such decision.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Kataria, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 12 October, 2015

The appellant has cited the judgment of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Neena Jain (2010) 330 ITR 157 (P&H) according to which the value of the house under construction including investment on construction is not liable to wealth tax. The ratio of the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer is not justified in not allowing exemption u/s 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has also wrongly applied section 2(ea)(i)(1). In the present case, the facts are entirely different and section 2(ea)(i)(1) cannot be invoked. The exemption as per section 5(1)(vi) not allowed by the Assessing Officer is therefore, allowed. Appeal on these grounds is allowed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shamrock Industrial Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 18 July, 2013

However, after taking note of all the facts available on records and also taking note of decision of various Courts and Tribunals as extracted above in the appellant's submission. I am of the considered view that the said addition to the land has not yet completed and the construction on the said land was still under 'construction and hence the said land ceases to be in the ambit of vacant land for its taxability under Wealth Tax Act. The appellant's submission and document adduced vide letter dated 22/10/2012 clearly suggests that the construction on the land has not been completed and there is dispute arising of the appellant through its 4 WTA No.16/2013 contractors namely M/s. Conart Engineers Ltd. and hence by no stretch of imagination the said addition can be said forming part of taxable asset under Wealth Tax Act as it is still remaining under construction. Taking note of the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Apollo 1'yres Ltd v / s. ACIT reported in 325 ITR 528 and Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Neena Jain reported in 330 ITR 157 (P&H), I consider it proper and appropriate to hold that AO was not correct in taking the amount of Rs. 77,29,298/- in determining the total wealth of the appellant company and accordingly the addition so made is deleted."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ishwar Sahai, New Delhi vs Assessee on 1 March, 2016

5.1 At the time of hearing, Ld. Authorised Representative of the Assessee filed a small Paper Book containing pages 1 to 36 in which he has attached the various documentary evidences for substantiating its claim alongwith the judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts. We have perused 4 WTA NO. 25/Del/2014 all the documentary evidence filed by the assessee in the shape of Paper Book alongwith the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs. Neena Jain (330 ITR 157 (P&H) and Delhi High Court decision in the case of CWT vs. Prem Nath Motors Pvt. Ltd. 238 ITR 414 (Del.). After perusing the orders of the revenue authorities, we are of the considered view that assessee could not substantiate his claim before the revenue authorities while filing the required documentary evidence which he has filed before us in the shape of Paper Book. Secondly, the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assesse has also certified that all these documents the assessee has filed before the lower authorities. He has given the Certificate dated 19.2.2016. Keeping in view of the Certificate given by Sh. A.K. Jain, CA and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the issue involved in the present Appeal requires thorough investigation at the level of the AO, after examining the documentary evidence filed by the assessee, as stated above by the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue in dispute afresh under the law, after considering all the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of Paper Book alongwith the judgment of the Hon'ble High 5 WTA NO. 25/Del/2014 Court and decided the issue afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcwt-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs M/S. Kanayo K. Motwani, Mumbai on 6 February, 2019

7. From the above, it is very evident that the property at M.H Tower, Belapur, Navi Mumbai was under construction even as on 20/01/2016 i.e., the date of passing the order for A.Y.2013-14. Admittedly, the Ld. AO had 5 WTA No.13/Mum/2018 M/s. Kanayo K. Motwani brought the subject mentioned assessee under the head "building" as a taxable asset u/s. 2(ea) of the Act. Now, it has been proved beyond doubt that the said asset is only building under construction as on the valuation date. Now the pertinent question which requires to be addressed is as to whether the building "under construction" would be liable for wealth tax as a taxable asset. We find that the issue under dispute has been squarely addressed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Neena Jain reported in 330 ITR 157 wherein it has been held as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Gift Tax ... vs M/S Sahara India (Firm)Lucknow on 27 August, 2013

He submits that a reading of this Section clearly shows that the word 'disposition', 'conveyance', 'assignment', 'settlement', 'delivery' and 'payment' are used as some of the modes of Transfer of Property. He also relied on the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs Shri O.P. Srivastava & others, ITA No.32 of 2006 and other connected appeals, where departmental appeals were dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.5.2013, but on specific query by the Bench, he admits that in the case of Srivastava (supra), the issue was relating to the shares at their face value which were allotted by the companies concerned pursuant to rights issue. In the instant case, the share and rights issue are not involved.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R Sharma - Full Document

Fiduciary Euromax Global Markets Ltd, ... vs Assessee on 29 June, 2016

18. We have examined the above contentions of the Ld. AR. We find that the Tribunal in the case of "DCIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd." in ITA No.6711/M/2011 vide order dated 14.09.2012 while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Smt. Leena 17 ITA Nos.1349/M/2012 & 955/M/2014 M/s. Fiduciary Euromax Global Markets Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next