ITO 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ROVICK PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The primary reason for dismissal was that the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below the threshold limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee had treated an asset as fixed asset in the preceding year and later converted it into stock-in-trade.
What were the issues?
Whether the conversion of a fixed asset into stock-in-trade is a deemed transfer under Section 45(2) and taxable under Section 50C, and whether the CIT(A) erred in treating the proceeds as business receipts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 17.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective grounds:- 1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts and circumstances that in this case the assessee has shown the asset as fixed asset in the preceeding year and therefore, at most, the assessee has converted the asset into Stock-In-Trade and hence, the provisions of section 45(20 is squarely applicable and consequently the conversion was required to be treated as deemed transfer u/s 50C and Short Assessment Year: 2012-13
Term Capital Gains were required to be worked out on basis of the Fair Market Value.
Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the treatment of proceeds on sale of the immovable property mentioned in Ground No. 1 above as business receipts whereas the same were partly in nature of Capital Gains and partly business receipts.”
At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the respondent/assessee pointed out that the tax effect of the relief granted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is below Rs.20 lacs and as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 11th July, 2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeal before the ITAT is 20 lacs.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) fairly conceded that this appeal is not maintainable in light of the above said CBDT Circular. The Ld. DR also did not point out that this appeal falls in any of the exceptions carved out in the above said circular.
We have gone through the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the grounds of appeals. We find that the tax effect in the above referred appeal is less than Rs. 20 lacs. Accordingly, we dismiss the aforesaid appeal filed by the Revenue. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th September, 2018. (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated: 19/09/2018
Alindra, PS Assessment Year: 2012-13
आदेश प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //// उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
More judgments on Section 45(2)
- Amrendra Kumar, Delhi vs ITO Ward 23(3), DelhiITA 2937/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Prashasti Enterprises, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle 8(4), MumbaiITA 6950/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Prashasti Enterprise, Mumbai vs ACIT, Central Circle 8(4), MumbaiITA 6949/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- DCIT-CC-8(4), Mumbai vs Prashasti Enterprise, MumbaiITA 6719/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- DCIT-CC-8(4), Mumbai vs Prashasti Enterprise, MumbaiITA 6718/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026