MR.PURSHOTAMDAS GOENKA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 13(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4254/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 September 2019AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in an identical case. The income from the sale of flats was to be treated as capital gains, not business income.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated income from the sale of flats as business income, while the assessee claimed it as capital gains. The assessee's case was identical to a previously decided co-ordinate bench appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the income derived from the sale of flats should be classified as business income or capital gains.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta
For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Hearing: 16/09/2019Pronounced: 20/09/2019

The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-28, Mumbai dated 02.04.2018, which in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 01.03.2014 for assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The sole grievance of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has assessed the income derived from sale of flats under the head “business income” instead of “capital gains”. At the outset, the learned representative

2 Mr. Purshotamdas Goenka for the assessee submitted that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal is identical to the appeal in the case of Mrs. Chanderkala Goenka being which has been decided by our co-ordinate bench vide its order dated 29.07.2019 and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee be also disposed of accordingly.

3.

The learned DR appearing for the Revenue did not controvert the submission of the learned representative for the assessee but relied on the orders of the authorities below.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the facts and circumstances as well as the issue in dispute is identical to the dispute decided by our co-ordinate bench in the case of Mrs. Chanderkala Goenka (supra), therefore, respectfully following the decision in the abovereferred case of Mrs. Chanderkala Goenka (supra), the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th September, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →