2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT v. Shah Doshi & Co.

133 ITR 23High Court1982#9365 most cited

What is 2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT v. Shah Doshi & Co. authority for?

Income does not accrue until the sale deed is signed or possession of property is handed over, meaning receipts disclosed in subsequent returns are relevant to determining accrual.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shah Doshi & Co · 133 ITR 23 · income accrual · sale deed · possession · undisclosed income · assessment order · subsequent returns

Judgments citing 2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT v. Shah Doshi & Co.

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…xecuting the sale deed in favour of purchaser/customer and presented for registration before registering authority. As per the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Asha Land Corporation (1982) 133 ITR 55 (GUJ) and CIT Vs Shah Doshi & Company (1982) 133 ITR 23 it was held that in case of real-estate dealer, the income from sale of the real-estate, become chargeable in the year in which the concerned real-estate dealer executes the sale deed in favours of the purchaser and when such sale deed is presented for registration. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee before the Raj Enterprises (AY 200…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…xecuting the sale deed in favour of purchaser/customer and presented for registration before registering authority. As per the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Asha Land Corporation (1982) 133 ITR 55 (GUJ) and CIT Vs Shah Doshi & Company (1982) 133 ITR 23 it was held that in case of real-estate dealer, the income from sale of the real-estate, become chargeable in the year in which the concerned real-estate dealer executes the sale deed in favours of the purchaser and when such sale deed is presented for registration. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee before the Raj Enterprises (AY 200…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Raj Enterprises, Surat

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…xecuting the sale deed in favour of purchaser/customer and presented for registration before registering authority. As per the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Asha Land Corporation (1982) 133 ITR 55 (GUJ) and CIT Vs Shah Doshi & Company (1982) 133 ITR 23 it was held that in case of real-estate dealer, the income from sale of the real-estate, become chargeable in the year in which the concerned real-estate dealer executes the sale deed in favours of the purchaser and when such sale deed is presented for registration. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee before the Raj Enterprises (AY 200…

M/S. Mayur Construction, Valsad vs. The ACIT., Valsad Range, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1042/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…crued as sale deed has not been signed or possession in respect of flats has not been handed over. The assessee relied on the judgements of Hon 'ble Gujarat High Court in the case(s) of CIT vs. Asha Land Corporation (133 ITR 55)[Guj], CAT vs. Shah Doshi& Co. (133 ITR 23)[Guj.J, ChdambaramChettiar v.v. C1T (4 ITR 309)[Mad.] and Kunjemat& Sons vs. CIT (9 ITR 359)[All./. The AO in para-10 of the assessment order computed the total undisclosed income for the block period at Rs.2,61,78,438/-. However, the AO opted to adopt the undisclosed income on the basis of the statement on oath of one Shri Sunil H.Desai being hig…

M/S the Keshab Jewellers, Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-50, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1225/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S The Keshab Jewellers -Vs- Jcit, Range-50, Kolkata [Pan: Aabft 5144 R ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kr. Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…the case of the assessee:- CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT v. Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT v. Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT v. Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Learned CITA. Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed." 7.3 Similar decision was rendered by thi…

ITO, WD-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Roopshree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 828/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 442/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 828/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Learned CITA. Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.” 7.3. Similar decision was rendered by…

M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-9(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 442/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 828/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Roopshree Jewellers (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcr 2241 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Srihari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145A

…the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Learned CITA. Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.” 7.3. Similar decision was rendered by…

ACIT, Circle-43, Kolkata vs. M/S. Jewel India Jewellers, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) ITA No. 202/Kol/15 M/s. Jewel India Jewellers 7 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Learned CITA. Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are d…

M/S D.K.Basak Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT. Cir. 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 51/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri S. L. Kochar & Anil Kochar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 3.9.6. We find that the ld AO had placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Allahabad Tribunal in the case of Jewellers Company vs ITO reported in 23 ITD 532 dated 19.6.1987 wherein only FIFO method had been accepted as the proper method for valuing stock in the case of a Jeweller. We find from the various aforesaid decisi…

D.C.I.T Cir - 12, Kolkata. vs. M/S D.K..Basak Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 379/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri S. L. Kochar & Anil Kochar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 3.9.6. We find that the ld AO had placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Allahabad Tribunal in the case of Jewellers Company vs ITO reported in 23 ITD 532 dated 19.6.1987 wherein only FIFO method had been accepted as the proper method for valuing stock in the case of a Jeweller. We find from the various aforesaid decisi…

A.C.I.T Cir - 43, Kolkata vs. M/S Jewell India Jewellers, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2085/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Alok Kr. Nag, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate &
Section 143(3)

…the case of the assessee:- CIT vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram reported in (2005) 275 ITR 312 (P&H) CIT vs Ema India Ltd reported in (2006) 296 ITR 510 (All) CIT vs Jagatjit Industries Ltd reported in (2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT vs Shah Doshi & Co reported in (1982) 133 ITR 23 (Guj) 7.5. In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Learned CITA. Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the rev…

2011) 339 ITR 382 (Del) CIT v. Shah Doshi & Co. (133 ITR 23) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax