RAOUL THACKERSEY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1262/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 July 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the premium on redemption of NCDs was not taxable as interest income but as capital gains, though it relied on a coordinate bench's decision for the department. The addition on account of perquisites was deleted as the employer-employee relationship was not established and the stamp duty value could not be extended to the buyer for taxation.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer. Key issues included the taxability of premium on redemption of NCDs, set-off of capital losses, and additions on account of perquisites and Section 14A disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether premium on redemption of NCDs is capital gains or interest income, and whether the difference between stamp duty value and sale consideration of a property can be taxed as perquisite to the buyer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 17(2)(iii),Section 50C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 11.07.2024Pronounced: 22.07.2024

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011- 2012 arises against the order of the learned CIT(A)-28, Mumbai, Mumbai’s Order in appeal no.CIT(A)-28/IT-

2 ITA.No.1262/MUM./2017 182/DC-12(1)/2014-15, dated 15.11.2016, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1) “The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the appellant's plea that the assessment was completed without giving proper oppo

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →