Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)
Sridhar Rajan , Chennai vs Assessee on 22 January, 2016 cites

C.I.T vs M/S Coromandel Industries P.Ltd. on 8 September, 2014

7. We heard the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the material on record and also judicial citations quoted. The assessee has invested in long term capital gains within six months from the date of transfer u/s.54EC of the Act in Rural Electrification Corporation and National Highway Authority of India capital gain bonds and complied with the provisions and there is no dispute about the investment. The Assessing Officer tried to make a distinction of provisions for restricting investment of >50,00,000/- only in one financial year. The assessee has invested in two installments falling in two financial years and availed tax exemption. We after considering the apparent facts and also respectfully rely on the jurisdictional High Court in the cases of C. :- 5 -: ITA No.2072/Mds/2015 Jaichander 370 ITR 579 (Supra) and CIT vs. Coramandel Industries Ltd 370 ITR 586 (Supra) setaside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and allow the ground of the assessee.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs C.Jaichander on 15 September, 2014

7. We heard the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the material on record and also judicial citations quoted. The assessee has invested in long term capital gains within six months from the date of transfer u/s.54EC of the Act in Rural Electrification Corporation and National Highway Authority of India capital gain bonds and complied with the provisions and there is no dispute about the investment. The Assessing Officer tried to make a distinction of provisions for restricting investment of >50,00,000/- only in one financial year. The assessee has invested in two installments falling in two financial years and availed tax exemption. We after considering the apparent facts and also respectfully rely on the jurisdictional High Court in the cases of C. :- 5 -: ITA No.2072/Mds/2015 Jaichander 370 ITR 579 (Supra) and CIT vs. Coramandel Industries Ltd 370 ITR 586 (Supra) setaside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and allow the ground of the assessee.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 40 - Full Document
1