(a) CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha ( (236 ITR 51)

M/S.Kerala Feeds Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Trichur

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kerala Feeds Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Department, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakunda, National Faceless Appeal Thrissur – 680 683. Centre (Nfac). Pan : Aaack 9796 N Ito (Tds), Thrissur. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. C. V. Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 201(1)

…lding are 3) separate assets as per the following decisions. Therefore, if an employee had availed housing loan; he is eligible for deduction for the interest paid. CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha (1993) 201 ITR 442 (Raj) CIT vs. Dr. D.L. Ramachandra Rao (1999) 236 ITR 51 (Mad) CIT vs. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon (2003) 264 ITR 76 (Ker) CIT vs. A.S. Aulakh (2008) 304 ITR 27 (P & H) CIT vs. Citi Bank N. A (2003) 261 ITR 570 (Born) 2. The assessee is a Government of Kerala Public Sector undertaking manufacturing cattle feeds. An inspection was conducted on 22.01.2016 to verify the TDS compliance. Accordingly, the ITO(T…

Smt. Seema Shah, Varanasi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Varanasi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 211/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Seema Shah, Income Tax Officer, B-37/1F 2Kh, Haijnatha, Ward –2(2) V. Birdopur, Varanasi, U.P. Varanasi- 221010,Uttar Pradesh Pan:Aqpps9465C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…d by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) 7 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Seema Shah v. ITO relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble High Court, as detailed hereunder:- a) C.N.Ananthram v. ACIT in ITA no. 1012/2008(Kar. HC) b) CIT v. Dr. D L RamachandraRao 236 ITR 51(Mds.) c) CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha 201 ITR 442(Raj.) d) CIT v. C.R.Subramanian 242 ITR 342(Kar.) Thus, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order passed by the AO, and held that benefit of deduction u/s 54 cannot be allowed on short term capital gains arising from sale of building/house(excluding land) which was a short term capital asset held by…

Legal Heirs of Late Shri Sunil Dutt, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 2972/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ership to the said land by virtue of being a member of the cooperative society and he relied upon the following case laws and supported the findings of Ld. CIT(A):- 1. 261 ITR 570 (Bom) CITv Citibank N. A. 2. 335 ITR 60 (Bom) CIT v Hindustan Hotels Ltd. 3. 236 ITR 51 (Mad) CIT v Eh-. D L Ramachandra Rao 4. 304 ITR 27 (P&H) CIT v A S Aulakh 5. 201 ITR 442 (Raj) CIT v Vimal Chand Golecha 31 I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 & 1112/Mum/2013 Legal Heirs of Late Shri Sunil Dutt, 6. 242 ITR 342 (Kar) CIT v C R Subramaman 7. 254 ITR 152 (Cal) CITv Estate of Omprakash Jhunjhunwala 8. 264 ITR 76 (Ker) CIT v Smt. Lakshmi B…

Shyamala Pictures and Hotel Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 04.07.2017

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 28

…atter is in fact well settled, having been followed by different High Courts in different fact settings (as, inter alia, in CIT vs. Citibank N. A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom); CIT vs. Parthas Trust [2001] 249 ITR 120 (Ker); CIT v. Dr. D.L. Ramachandra Rao [1999] 236 ITR 51 (Mad); CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha [1993] 201 ITR 442 (Raj)), and also applied by the tribunal in many a case (viz. Asst. CIT v. Eagle Burgmann Inds. (P.) Ltd. (in ITA No.4249/Mum/2012 dated 08/4/2015). Further, the land, being owned by the assessee since prior to 01.04.1981, shall be a long-term capital asset (LTCA) on the deemed cost of which (i…

Jaswant Rai Arora, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2907/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Sh.Jaswant Rai Arora Vs. Acit, Central Range 34 Hcmr Complex New Delhi Vill. Mandoli Delhi 110 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Raj Kumar Gupta & Sh.Sumit Goel, Cas Respondent By : Ms.Rishpal Bedi, Sr.D.R. Order

For Appellant: Sh.Raj Kumar Gupta and Sh.Sumit Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Ms.Rishpal Bedi, Sr.D.R

Section 50C

…sessee has rightly relied on the following case laws in support of his contention that land and building should be valued separately and that the capital gain on each of these assets should be computed separately. (i) CIT vs. Dr.D.L.Ramchandra Rao reported in 236 ITR 51 (Madras) (ii) CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha reported in 201 ITR 442 (Raj.) (iii) CIT vs. Citi Bank N.A. reported in 261 ITR 570 (Bom.) Thus, we direct the AO to consider the valuation of land separately from the value adopted for the building, by following the proposition laid down in these case laws. 5.2. We have already extracted from the Ld.CIT(…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Firoz Tin Factory, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6756/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

Section 143(1)Section 50

…by the AO is also wrong in view of the following decisions, wherein it was held that the value of land and building should be segregated while ascertaining the capital gains:- (a) CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha (201 ITR 442)(Raj) (b) CIT Vs. D.L.Ramachandra Rao (236 ITR 51)(Mad) (c) CIT Vs. C.R.Subramanian (242 ITR 342)(Kar) (d) CIT Vs. Hindustan Hotels Ltd & Anr. (335 ITR 60)(Bom) (e) CIT Vs. CITI Bank N.A (261 ITR 570)(Bom) No doubt that a building has to be constructed upon a land only; however depreciation is admissible u/s 32 of the Act only on the amount spent on construction of super structure and not on the…

Firoz Tin Factory, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6224/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

Section 143(1)Section 50

…by the AO is also wrong in view of the following decisions, wherein it was held that the value of land and building should be segregated while ascertaining the capital gains:- (a) CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha (201 ITR 442)(Raj) (b) CIT Vs. D.L.Ramachandra Rao (236 ITR 51)(Mad) (c) CIT Vs. C.R.Subramanian (242 ITR 342)(Kar) (d) CIT Vs. Hindustan Hotels Ltd & Anr. (335 ITR 60)(Bom) (e) CIT Vs. CITI Bank N.A (261 ITR 570)(Bom) No doubt that a building has to be constructed upon a land only; however depreciation is admissible u/s 32 of the Act only on the amount spent on construction of super structure and not on the…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Prashanth Prakash, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…cated as one relating to land and the other relating to building. If the land is held for more than 36 months, then capital gain on sale of land has to be treated as long term capital gain. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramachandra Rao, 236 ITR 51 (Mad) had an occasion to deal with identical case. The Hon’ble Court held as follows:- “8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both parties. The expression "capital asset" is defined in s. 2(14) of the Act as under : "Capital asset means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profe…

Prashanth Prakash, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I, .T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 573/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 48

…cated as one relating to land and the other relating to building. If the land is held for more than 36 months, then capital gain on sale of land has to be treated as long term capital gain. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramachandra Rao, 236 ITR 51 (Mad) had an occasion to deal with identical case. The Hon’ble Court held as follows:- “8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of both parties. The expression "capital asset" is defined in s. 2(14) of the Act as under : "Capital asset means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or prof…

(a) CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha (

Judgments citing (a) CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha (