(a) CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha (201 ITR 442)(Raj) (b) CIT v. D.L.Ramachandra Rao ( (242 ITR 342)

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)

…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 the assessee. 6. The assesseestill being aggrieved by appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A)…

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

…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 Memon 9. 137 ITD 376 (Mum-Trib) Asst. CIT v Jaimal K Shah 10. 176 TTJ 699 (Mum-Trib) DCIT v J B Engg. Works 35. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we notice that in the case of CIT v Citi…

MADHU C. GANWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered

ITA 8891/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kr. Rai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…purpose of disallowing the Long Term / Short Term Capital Gain in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Hindustan Hotels Ltd. 335 ITR 60 Hon’ble Bombay High Court and CIT Vs. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon 264 ITR 76 Hon’ble Kerela High Court and CIT Vs. C.R.Subramanian 242 ITR 342 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha 201 ITR 442 Hon’ble Rajastan High Court which has not been considered by the Assessing Officer, therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand the learned dep…

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

…ng 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 value of land. Hence, the view entertained by…

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

…ng 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 value of land. Hence, the view entertained by…

ITO, DAVANGERE vs. M/S MAGANAHALLI STEEL CORPORATION, DAVANGERE

ITA 750/BANG/2009[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2015AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 1989-90

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 50(2)

…is as under:- & CO No.7/Bang/2009 Page 3 of 20 “2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing to calculate Capital gains on land and building separately as per the principle laid down in the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. C. R. Subramanian (242 ITR 342). 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating that the asset in this case was held for business purpose and depreciation had been claimed and Capital Gains is to be worked out as per Sec.50(2). “ 4. The above issues were already decided by the ITAT in ITA No.2096/Bang/1992 by order dated 20.7.1995. On a reference by the ITAT in ITRC No.479/1998…

(a) CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha (201 ITR 442)(Raj) (b) CIT v. D.L.Ramachandra Rao (