Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.28 seconds)

Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni,Pune vs Ito Ward 13(2), Pune on 28 May, 2025

3. Learned Counsel for the assessee, per contra, submits that merely because the concerned conveyancementions Rs.55.00 lakh, that itself cannot be taken as the income escaping assessment inasmuch as the cost ofacquisition to be deducted from it and if that is done, it would fall below the ceiling limit of Rs.50.00 lakh.This aspect of the matter, learned Counsel for the assessee submits, was considered by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court sitting at Jabalpur in Nitin Nema v. Office of Principal Chief CIT [2023] 155taxmann.com 276/458 ITR 690 (Madhya Pradesh) and relief has been accorded to the Assessee of the kindafter referring to the order impugned in this appeal. He also tells us that challenge to the Jabalpur Bench'sorder has attained finality at the hands of the Apex Court in SLP No(C). 38708 of 2024 on 17.09.2024 andtherefore, the order of the learned Single Judge has secured imprimatur of the Apex Court. So contending, heseeks dismissal of the appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Income Tax Officer vs Mr. Sanath Kumar Murali on 10 February, 2025

3. Learned Counsel for the assessee, per contra, submits that merely because the concerned conveyance mentions Rs.55.00 lakh, that itself cannot be taken as the income escaping assessment inasmuch as the cost of acquisition to be deducted from it and if that is done, it would fall below the ceiling limit of Rs.50.00 lakh. This aspect of the matter, learned Counsel for the assessee submits, was considered by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court sitting at Jabalpur in NITIN NEMA v. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX1 and relief has been accorded to the Assessee of the kind after referring to the order impugned in this appeal. 1 (2023) 458 ITR 690.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document
1