How many judgments cite Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.?

244 judgments on BharatTax cite Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. (226 ITR 625), spanning 2005 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 54, Section 143(1), Section 40A(7), Section 139(1).

Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

226 ITR 625Supreme Court of India1997#356 most cited

What is Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. authority for?

Amendments to tax laws that are explanatory, declaratory, curative, or clarificatory in nature are judicially construed as retrospective, especially if they are intended to remedy unintended consequences.

244

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Allied Motors v CIT · CIT v Podar Cement · retrospective amendment · curative amendment · declaratory amendment · explanatory amendment · unintended consequences · tax law · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 54 Section 143(1)Section 40A(7)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215 section 207 section 2(43)section 262 section 209 section 2(1)section 208 section 210 section 115jaa section 140a minimum alternate tax

Judgments citing Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.

Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None

Section 143(2)Section 68

…0. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also contended that when two views are possible, one in favour of the assessee shall be adopted and our attention was drawn to the decisions in 'Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Others' [(1997) 226 ITR 625], 'Manish Maheshwari v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another' [(2007) 289 ITR 341 (SC)] and Indore Construction P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax' [(2007) 289 ITR 341] and canvassed for the said proposition. But since we are of the clear opinion that the assessee was entitled to get the deduction of the amounts as provided under Sec.3…

DCIT, Circle-2, Kalyan vs. Shri Madhav Suresh Donde, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4549/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 4549/मुं/2018 ("न.व.2014-15) Dcit, Circle -2, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Khadakpada, Wayale Nagar, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Kalyan (W) – 421 301 बनाम/ Vs. Shri Madhav Suresh Donde, Anand Nagar, Nr.Yashwant Vidyalalya, Ashele Pada, Ulhasnagar – 421 003 Pan:Ajlpd-2313-D : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Kumar ,Sr.AR-CITFor Respondent: None

Section 139Section 40

…uctable at source instead of 100%. It is a well settled proposition that wherever amendments are introduced to remove hardship /mitigate the problems or remove ambiguities, the same would be clarificatory/curative in nature. [Re: CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd.,226 ITR 625(SC)] Hence, the amendment brought in by Finance (No.2) Act 2014 to the 1st Proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is clarificatory in nature and would operate retrospectively. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal while dealing with similar issue in the case of Asphalt India Corporation vs. DCIT (supra) relied on decisions of Tribunal in the case of Rajendra Y…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Sarojini M Kushe

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/475/2016HC Karnataka01 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 48Section 50CSection 50D

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR I.T.A.No.475/2016 BETWEEN : 1 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA MANGALURU-575 001 2 . THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU-575 001 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND : SMT.SAROJINI M. KUSHE P.V.S. BEEDIES PVT. LTD., KODIALBAIL, MANGALURU-575 001 PAN: ADUPK 2615C …RESPOND…

M/S Esteem Mall, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6(3((1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1287/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year:

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 143(3)

…wner of the house property and directed the AO to consider Rs.57,52,392 as income from sub-letting which is wrong. Reliance is placed on the parity of reasoning of the decision of the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Poddar Cements (P) Ltd., 226 ITR 625 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- "Hence, thought under the common law, "owner" means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, etc., in the context of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, having regard to the ground realities…

Sri Monaj Pati, Paschim Medinipur vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-38, Paschim Midnapore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2401/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.T Varkey & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sri Manoj Pati Acit, Circle-38, Pan: Aespp2111H Midnapore, Nazarganj, V/S. C/O M/S. Salarpuria Paschim Midnapore- Jajodia & Co., 721101 7 Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700 072. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri A.T Varkey, Judicial Member and Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Sri Manoj Pati ACIT, Circle-38, PAN: AESPP2111H Midnapore, Nazarganj, V/s. C/o M/s. Salarpuria Paschim Midnapore- Jajodia & Co., 721101 7 Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700 072. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing through video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA, Ld. AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl.CIT, Ld.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 08-09-2021 घोषणा क…

Shri. Sajal Radhikamohan Kar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-27 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6476/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54

…d 32 of the IT Act, are very much inter-linked and connected for granting the benefit under the IT Act. The word and phrase "owner" in the context of s. 22 of the IT Act has been elaborated in CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. Etc. (1997) 141 CTR (SC) 67 : (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC); and Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT (1999) 156 CTR (SC) 1 : (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC). An assessee must have valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirement of law or at least entitled to receive income from the property in his own right and have control and domain over the said property for all the legal purposes, which…

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8617/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

…evident that the documentation is merely a smoke screen without matching with the real picture on the ground. B. Whether the lessor was owner of the equipments which is prerequisite for claim of depreciation ? B.1. SC in the case of Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (226 ITR 625)(SC) where the full rights of an owner recognised by law were held to be (a) power of enjoyment (b) possession, which includes the right to exclude others (c) power to alienate or to charge security and (d) power to leave the asset by will. B.2 Based on the facts of the case in hand as discussed above, the lessor did not get the possession 87 I…

ITO, Ward-32(4), New Delhi vs. Swati Oberoi, New Delhi

ITA 4150/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Senior DR

Section 54ESection 54F

…s of the business or profession. The terms "own", "ownership" and "owned" are generic and relative terms. They have a wide and also a narrow connotation. The meaning would depend on the context in which the terms are used. CIT v. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. [1997]226 ITR 625 (SC), is a case under the Income-tax Act and has to be taken as a trend- setter in the concept of ownership. Assistance from the law laid down therein can be taken for finding out the meaning of the term "owned" as occurring in section 32(1) of the Act. The term owned as occurring in section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act must be assigned a wider me…

DCIT - 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6426/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6425/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6426/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 1140/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Maharashtra Tourism Tax, Circle 1(2)(2), Development Corporation Room No. 535, 5 Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd. फनाभ/ Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 C.D.O. Hutments, Opp. Lic 020 Bldg, Mada Cama Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacm0712G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Mamta Bansal, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Anil Sathe, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-8, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; Ay 10-11 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-365 & 366/15-16, Cit(A)- 2/It/10479/2016-17 Vide Dated 07.08.2017, 17.12.2018. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 01.03.2013, 27.03.2015, 28.12.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Mamta Bansal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe, AR

Section 143(3)

…that this is only clarificatory explanation and normal presumption is that these provisions have Mr. Rajen Rasiklal Vora; AY 10-11 been in the Act from the very inception, once it is clarificatory for this, she relied on CIT v. Podar Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC). 18. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Salzgitter Hydraulics (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2021) 128 taxmann.com 192 (Hyderabad – Trib.) dated 15.06.2021, wherein it is held that the provident fund c…

Anitha Bobba, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri N. Srikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 158BSection 250(6)Section 54Section 54B

…r the contention of the revenue is accepted, it would be a derogatory step.[Para 9] Even when one look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625/92 Taxman 541 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership. Moreover, section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in…

J.R.D Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3738/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 263

…on 263 is declaratory in nature and is inserted to provide clarity. 15.3 Earlier also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again declared various explanations in certain statute as declaratory in nature. For example: In CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625/92 Taxman 541 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 in so far the related to Section 27(iii), (iiia) and (iiib) which redefined the expression 'owner of house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory Assessment year: 2014-15…

Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3737/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 263

Jytsna Sunderlal Shroff, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 216/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A. Mohan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…ce the executed documents are registered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents as held in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (Raj). In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), it is held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied with the twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the r…

DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. Naba Diganta Water Management Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1794/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2013-14 Dcit, Circle-2(2) M/S Naba Diganta Water Aayakar Bhawan, Room Management Ltd., Gn-11- बनाम / No. 24, 7Th Floor, P-7, 19, Salt Lake, Sector-V, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 091 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaccn 6958 P] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “VIRTUAL COURT A” KOLKATA Before Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2013-14 DCIT, Circle-2(2) M/s Naba Diganta Water Aayakar Bhawan, Room Management Ltd., GN-11- बनाम / No. 24, 7th Floor, P-7, 19, Salt Lake, Sector-V, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 091 Kolkata-700 069 [PAN No.AACCN 6958 P] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Kirit Kamadar, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-10-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 21-10-2020 घोषणा क" त…

Ramesh Chander Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 53(5), New Delhi

ITA 161/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. D.R

Section 54ESection 54F

…ty and the non-registration thereof does not in any manner disentitle the transferee from the enjoyment of the property. 10. In this connection reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.l.T vs Podar Cement Ltd, [(1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)] and CIT vs Mysore Minerals Ltd [(1999) 239 ITR 775(SC)]. 10 ITA.No.161/Del./2020 Smt. Savita Bhasin L.R. of (wife) Shri Ramesh Chander Bhasin, New Delhi. 11. It may be further submitted that the property in question i.e. the one in Malibu Town, the ownership of which has been the basis for the denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Act was joi…

Sri Anand Kumar Dhanuka, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Ranchi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 10Section 22Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…and 32 of the Income-tax Act, are very much interlinked and connected for granting the benefit under the Income-tax Act. The word and phrase "owner" in the context of section 22 of the Income-tax Act has been elaborated in CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625(SC) and Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775(SC). An assessee must have valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirement of law or at least entitled to receive income from the property in his own right and have control and domain over the said property for all the legal purposes, which basically excluding a third…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ee‘s entitlement towards claim of depreciation on the leasehold rights. Rebutting the aforesaid claim of the revenue, the ld. A.R had drawn our attention to various judicial pronouncements, as under: (1) Podar Cement (P) ltd. (1997) 92 Taxman 541 (SC)/(1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)/(1997) 141 CTR 67 (SC). (2) Mysore Minerals Ltd. [1999] 106 Taxman 166 (SC)/[1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC)/[1999] 156 CTR 1 (SC) (3) Dilip Singh Sardarsingg Bagga [1994] 77 Taxman 66 9Bombay)/[1993] 201 ITR 995 (Bombay) (4) Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 693 (Delhi)/[2002] 257 ITR 88 (Delhi)/[2002] 176 CTR 294 (Delhi) (5) Varanasi Aut…

Late Bhagwandas A Nichlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 4933/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Prem Nichlani On Behalf Of The Ito 17 (1) (2), Late Bhagwandas A. Nichlani, First Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1302/1303, Dalamal Tower, Mumbai - 400020 211, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaepn2256R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinay Sinha (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Sinha (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)

Section 143

…Rs.5 lakh was made by the assessee towards the purchase of the flat. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148 (P & H) (Para-3), CIT vs R.R. Sood (1986) 161 ITR 92; 24 taxman 498 (Bom.)(para-3), CIT vs Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) (226 ITR 625 (SC)(para-9) and CIT vs Ms. Piroja C. Patel (2000) 242 ITR 582(Bom.)(Para-3) supports the case of the assessee. In the case of Ms. Nita A. Patel, it was held that the assets which are referred under the capital gains include not only the property which are tangible but also intangible rights, whose physical possession cannot be taken. The word “h…

Nahalchand Laloochand P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 6041/MUM/2018[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 1990-91

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik – Ld. DR

Section 22Section 250Section 269USection 27Section 56

…submitted that the assessee is deemed owner of the property in terms of section 27(iiib) r/w section 269UA(f). In support of such contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– • CIT v/s Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) • Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) 15. We have carefully and patiently considered the contentions of the parties and perused the material on record in the light of decisions relied upon. As could be seen from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while restoring the matter back to the file of the Tribunal reproduced here…

Santosh Raju Shetty, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1757/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, CIT(DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…istered, the transfer will take place on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. In this regard, we rely on the decision in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (Raj). In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the assessee had purchased a plot of land vide agreement of sale dated 23.11.2006 along with others for a total consideration of Rs.29,00,000/- which was registered on 23.11.2006, by paying full stamp duty and registration charges…