ACIT v. Jaimal K. Shah

137 ITD 376Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19125 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 54fsection 54long term capital gainsservice of noticelong term capital gaincondonation of delaytransferperson

Judgments citing ACIT v. Jaimal K. Shah

MR SANJAY DUTT,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RANGE 11 (1), MUMBAI

ITA 91/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

…deration includes consideration for land. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by following the order of his predecessor in the case of assessee’s father and the decision of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Jaimal K. Shah, 137 ITD 376. The CIT(A) allowed assessee’s claim of Long Term Capital Gains is to be charged on sale of land. We find that there is no contrary material to dislodge the findings of CIT(A). Further this issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri Sunil Dutt, father of the assessee. The assessee and Late Shri Sunil Dutt were hav…

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. SANJAY DUTT, MUMBAI

ITA 2414/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

…deration includes consideration for land. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by following the order of his predecessor in the case of assessee’s father and the decision of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Jaimal K. Shah, 137 ITD 376. The CIT(A) allowed assessee’s claim of Long Term Capital Gains is to be charged on sale of land. We find that there is no contrary material to dislodge the findings of CIT(A). Further this issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri Sunil Dutt, father of the assessee. The assessee and Late Shri Sunil Dutt were hav…

SANJAY S. DUTT,MUMBAI vs. ASST 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7109/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

…deration includes consideration for land. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by following the order of his predecessor in the case of assessee’s father and the decision of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Jaimal K. Shah, 137 ITD 376. The CIT(A) allowed assessee’s claim of Long Term Capital Gains is to be charged on sale of land. We find that there is no contrary material to dislodge the findings of CIT(A). Further this issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri Sunil Dutt, father of the assessee. The assessee and Late Shri Sunil Dutt were hav…

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

…T 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 Citibank 261 ITR 570 (Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, wherein it was held that as per the above ratio, the flat owners will get right of possession as…

ACIT v. Jaimal K. Shah (137 ITD 376) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax