Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs S.Muthukarupan on 11 September, 2006

Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Vedula Venkata Ramana, L/R Of Late Smt. ... on 12 June, 2023

In these circumstances, while placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Muthukarupan (2007) 290 ITR 154, it was submitted that it would be travesty of justice, if the assessee, one of the co-owners, is solely picked out and an enhanced income is attributed in his hands for the same property. Learned AR submits that this decision is applicable to the facts of the case since under sale deed there were three co-sharers and even for one of such co-sharers, there are three Legal Representatives and, therefore, leaving all others, if the entire enhanced income is attributed to assessee himself, it cannot be permitted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Praveen Kumar (Ihuf), Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 7 June, 2012

In the instant case also the assessee received the gifts along with the three other family members from the same person. The source of the 8 ITA No. 2796, 2798, 2800, 2802/M/09 Praveen Kumar (HUF) donor for making the gifts was the same and the transaction was also through the similar banking channel, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid referred to case, no different stand could have been taken in the case of assessee when the department had already accepted the genuineness of a similar gift vide assessment order dated 31/03/2006 passed under section 143(3) of the Act in the case of Raj Kumar Aora HUF belonging to the same group, to which the assessee belongs. In that view of the matter, we do not see any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Santha, Chennai vs Assessee on 30 July, 2010

3. Now, regarding the first grievance of the assessee that interest free funds were utilized for giving the advances and this aspect was not considered, we find that the Tribunal has made specific mention thereof at page 4 of its order. The Tribunal has given a finding that the CIT(Appeals) had found that the advances to have been made out of borrowed funds. Vis-à-vis the second grievance regarding non- consideration of cited decision, we find that in para 8 of its order, the Tribunal had specifically considered the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Muthukarupan (supra) and dealt with it in para 12 reproduced hereunder, which is self-explanatory:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad vs Sienna Constructions Private Limited, ... on 22 July, 2024

24.1. In our considered opinion, once there is no change in facts and law, the Revenue is bound to take consistent stand and assess in the same manner, as it has been done in other two cases, namely, Zinnia Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd and Honey Dew Agro. The Revenue has not brought to our notice Page 41 of 47 ITA Nos. 681/Hyd/2017 653/Hyd/2017 any proceedings which shows that the assessment order passed in the case of Zinnia Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd and Honey Dew Agro have not been accepted by the Revenue. As per record, no correction proceedings were initiated by the Revenue against the said two companies under section 263 of the Act. The ld.AR during the course of argument had relied upon the decision in the case of Jaswant Rai (supra) and also in the case of M.S.Virmathi H. Dalal (supra), which are the decisions on the principle that the similarly situated co- sharers should be subjected to the same treatment and tax liability. We do not find any fault in the said proposition. Law commands that the citizens, who are similarly situated and placed are required to be taxed in the same manner with a view to maintain the uniformity and consistency in tax adjudication.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Red Earth Agro Farms Llp (Formerly Known ... vs Ito, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad on 22 July, 2024

24.1. In our considered opinion, once there is no change in facts and law, the Revenue is bound to take consistent stand and assess in the same manner, as it has been done in other two cases, namely, Zinnia Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd and Honey Dew Agro. The Revenue has not brought to our notice Page 41 of 47 ITA Nos. 681/Hyd/2017 653/Hyd/2017 any proceedings which shows that the assessment order passed in the case of Zinnia Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd and Honey Dew Agro have not been accepted by the Revenue. As per record, no correction proceedings were initiated by the Revenue against the said two companies under section 263 of the Act. The ld.AR during the course of argument had relied upon the decision in the case of Jaswant Rai (supra) and also in the case of M.S.Virmathi H. Dalal (supra), which are the decisions on the principle that the similarly situated co- sharers should be subjected to the same treatment and tax liability. We do not find any fault in the said proposition. Law commands that the citizens, who are similarly situated and placed are required to be taxed in the same manner with a view to maintain the uniformity and consistency in tax adjudication.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ajit Kumar Chordia vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 July, 2017

12. At this stage, it would be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs S.Muthukarupan [2007]290 ITR 0154, wherein, the Court held that if during the same assessment year the same quantity of wealth in possession of one co-sharer is subjected to a lower rate of taxation, it would be highly improper to burden a similarly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities is sanctioned, it would militate against the principle of equality of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1