Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.46 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.N. Naik Associates And Anr. And ... on 23 July, 2003
Decision at S.No.19 in the case
of Riyaz A.Sheikh (supra) follows the decision in the case of Tribbhuvandas
G.Patel (supra) which relates to the law prior to Amendment w.e.f 1.4.1989.
Section 47 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Jashbhai Tribhuvandas Patel, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax on 8 May, 2013
Decision at S.No.19 in the case
of Riyaz A.Sheikh (supra) follows the decision in the case of Tribbhuvandas
G.Patel (supra) which relates to the law prior to Amendment w.e.f 1.4.1989.
Section 54EC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shri Sunil Siddharthbhai Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad ... on 27 September, 1985
So far as question No. 3 is concerned the assessee invoked clause (ii ) of
section 47 to contend that the said sum of Rs. 4,47,941 does not represent a
capital gain. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee, has
ITA No.1700/Bang/2016
Page 15 of 23
brought to our notice the decision of this court in CIT ( Addl.)v. Mohanbai
Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 where it has been held, following the
decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC), that even
where a partner retires and some amount is paid to him towards his share in
the assets, it should be treated as falling under clause (ii) of section 47.
Therefore, following this decision, this question has to be and is answered
in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue."
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Malabar Fisheries Co, Calcutta vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala on 19 September, 1979
1 Malabar Fisheries Co. Vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 49 (SC) 93-101
2 ACIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987] 165 ITR 166 (SC) 102
3 ACIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1973] 91 ITR 393 (Guj) 103-111
4 CIT V Legal Representatives of N Paliniappa Gounder [1983] 143 ITR 343 (Madras) 112-115
5 CIT Vs. P.H Patel [1988] 171 ITR 128 (Andhra Pradesh) 116-121
ITA No.1700/Bang/2016
Page 19 of 23
6 CIT V Madan Lal Bhargava [1980] 122 ITR 545 (Allahabad) 122-125
7 ACIT Vs. Sri Mahinderpal Bhasin [1979] 117 ITR 26 (Allahabad) 126-129
8 CIT Vs. Krishnamoorthy [1998] 229 ITR 559 (Madras) 130-132
9 CIT Vs. L Raghu Kumar [1982] 141 ITR 674 (Andhra Pradesh) 133-136
10 CIT Vs. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801 (SC) 137-138
11 Tribhuvandas G Patel Vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 515 (SC) 139-141
12 CIT Vs. P.N Panjawani [2012] 356 ITR 676 (Karnataka) 142-152
13 CIT Vs. G Seshagiri Rao [1992] 65 Taxman 409 (Andra Pradesh 153-155
14 ACIT Vs. Unity Care & Health Services [2006] 103 ITD 53 (Bangalore) 156-162
15 ITO Vs. Prabhuraj B Appa [2006] 6 SOT 415 (Bangalore) 163-
165
16 CIT Vs. Dynamic Enterprises [2013] 359 ITR 83 (Karnataka) 166-
176
17 ACIT Vs. P Sivakumar [2014] 43 Taxmann.com 211 (Chennai - Trib) 177-
181
18 Prashant S Joshi and Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale Vs. ITO and UOI [2010] 182-
230 CTR 232 (Bombay) 188
19 CIT Vs. J.P Devadhar and M.S Sanklecha [2014] 221 Taxmann 118 189-
ITA No.1700/Bang/2016
Page 20 of 23
(Bombay) 190
20 Sharadha Terry Products Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2016] 68 taxmann.com 191-
220
282 (Chennai Trib.)
The Commr Of Income Tax vs M/S Dynamic Enterprise on 16 September, 2013
Case law at Sl.No.16 & 21 in the case of
Dhinaic Enterprises (supra) and A.N.Naik Associates (supra) are cases in which
the firm was the Assessee. The present appeal is from the perspective of the
retiring partner. Hence, these decisions do not held the plea of the Assessee.