Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 93 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors. vs N. Ramanatha Reddiar (Huf) And Ors. on 26 September, 1996

Kamlesh Kalyanchand Lalwani, Huf,, ... vs Income-Tax Officer,, on 23 February, 2018

Therefore, as per the provisions of proviso to section 148 of the Act, the AO can assume jurisdiction only when there is failure on part of the assessee "to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year". Therefore, to adjudicate the additional ground raised before me, in our view, what is to be seen is if there exists the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to the enhanced compensation/interest. There is no dispute on the date of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 25-03-2010 and the relevant A.Y. 2001-02 is not the year of receipt of the compensation. Considering the above cited ratios laid down by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) which is categorical in stating the 'year of taxation' in this kind of situation is the 'year of receipt', A.Y. 2010-11 constitutes the 'year of receipt' in this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vikrambhai Somabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 6 May, 2014

6. In our considered view, the authorities below ought to have given a clear finding as to how this amount would become taxable if it is forming integral part of the compensation, when transfer is of the agricultural land. Since this claim was not made before the authorities below, but arising from the material available before the AO, requires fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is restored back to the file of AO for decision afresh. The AO is directed to decide the claim of the assessee in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs Suman Dhamija on 8 December, 2015

(ii) After the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC), the earlier decision in CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Limited (supra) was no longer good law as far as receipt of enhanced compensation, solatium, additional amount and interest in the financial year ending 31st March ITA Nos.20, 21 & 24 of 2003 and WTA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2003 Page 19 of 39 2008 (relevant to AY 1988-89) was concerned. It made no difference whether the proceedings concerning enhancement of compensation were pending in appeal in the High Court. Section 155(16) read with Section 45(5)(c) of the Act would take care of the consequences of the final orders that might be passed in either the proceedings for enhancement of compensation or those under Section 31(2) LA Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Ramvallabh Asawa, Bellary vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 January, 2014

5.6. With regard to the assessee's argument that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict in Rama Bai's case was delivered by a Three Judges' Bench whereas the verdict in Ghanshyam's case was pronounced only by a Two Judges' Bench and, thus, the Two Judges' Bench was bound to follow the decision of Three Judges' Bench; we would like to point out that section 45(5) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1988 was not considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (since that case pertained to A.Y. 1968-69); when the question of accrual of interest on enhanced compensation was dealt with in the case of Rama Bai and Ors v. CIT reported in (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC). Accordingly, we are of the view that the contention that the Two Members' Bench was bound to follow the decision of the Three Members' Bench does not fit in, in the instant case, as argued by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohanlal Asawa & Brothers (Huf), ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 January, 2014

5.6. With regard to the assessee's argument that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict in Rama Bai's case was delivered by a Three Judges' Bench whereas the verdict in Ghanshyam's case was pronounced only by a Two Judges' Bench and, thus, the Two Judges' Bench was bound to follow the decision of Three Judges' Bench; we would like to point out that section 45(5) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1988 was not considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (since that case pertained to A.Y. 1968-69); when the question of accrual of interest on enhanced compensation was dealt with in the case of Rama Bai and Ors v. CIT reported in (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC). Accordingly, we are of the view that the contention that the Two Members' Bench was bound to follow the decision of the Three Members' Bench does not fit in, in the instant case, as argued by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramvallabh Asawa & Sons(Huf), Bellary vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 January, 2014

5.6. With regard to the assessee's argument that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict in Rama Bai's case was delivered by a Three Member Judges' Bench whereas the verdict in Ghanshyam's case was pronounced only by a Two Member Judges' Bench and, thus, the Two Judges' Bench was bound to follow the decision of Three Judges' Bench; we would like to point out that section 45(5) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1988 was not considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (since that case pertained to A.Y. 1968-69); when the question of accrual of interest on enhanced compensation was dealt with in the case of Rama Bai and Ors v. CIT reported in (1990) 181 ITR 400 (SC). Accordingly, we are of the view that the contention that the Two Members' Bench was bound to follow the decision of the Three Members' Bench does not fit in, in the instant case, as argued by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rani Kamla Devi , Panchkula vs Assessee on 12 December, 2014

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and whether in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) in Civil Appeal No. 4401 of 2009, Ld. CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,58,276/- on account of inters ton enhanced compensation by holding that the interest received by the assessee will be assessable to tax on accrual basis when the litigation regarding the quantum of enhanced compensation and interest thereon is finally settled.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next