Apsi Ginwala & Ors. v. 10 M/s. Shah Textile Pvt. Ltd. ACIT

52 SOT 16Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#14265 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 54e section 54ec long-term capital asset date of transfer section 54 transfer section 143 prescribed section 14 section 143(3)business

Judgments citing Apsi Ginwala & Ors. v. 10 M/s. Shah Textile Pvt. Ltd. ACIT

Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 949/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…rt as cited by the appellant, wherein interalia, the above position of law as prevailing prior to A.Y.2015-16 has been accepted. In the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Aspi Ginwala, Shree Ram Engg & Mfg. Industries us. ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 16/20 taxmann.com 75 (Ahd.) on identical facts, it is held as under: The appellant sold property on 22.10.2007 and computed long-term capital gains. The section 54EC investment was required to be made within 6 months ie. on or before 21.04.2008. The appellant invested Rs. 50 lakhs in REC bonds on 31.12.2007 (F.Y. 2007-08, within the 6 M time limit) an…

The ACIT. Circle-2(2), Ahmedbad vs. Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, Ahmedbad

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

ITA 822/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

…years but within six months period from the date of transfer of capital asset, assessee was definitely eligible to claim exemption upto Rs.1 Crore. The same view has been taken by Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Aspi Ginwala & Others v. ACOT (52 SOT 16). We are, therefore, of the opinion that the assessee has to succeed in this appeal. Claim of the assessee for exemption upto Rs.1 Crore has to be allowed in accordance with Section 54EC of the Act." 3.5 Assailing the said order dated 31.1.2013 made in I.T.A.No.1950/Mds/2012 passed by the Tribunal, the department filed T.C.(A) No.533 of 2014 raisin…

Santosh Mareshwar Rack VI, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2021/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2021/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Santosh Moreshwar Rack Vi बिधम/ Ito Ward 2(2) 3/37, Anand Ashray, Ram Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Road, Bhayander Tax(A)-1, Room No.30, B Wing, 6Th (W), Thane-401101. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpr6634P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikhil A. Rajadhyaksha Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. That The Ito Ward 2(2), Thane & The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Thane Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating The Fact That This Matter Has Been Decided By The Itat A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil A. RajadhyakshaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

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

…ion when there is nil income in hands of the appellant in the subsequent financial year. 2.3.1 I find that similar issue arose for consideration of the Hon’ble Ahmadabad Bench in the case of Aspi Ginwala, Shree Ram Engg. & Mfg. Industries vs. ACIT reported in 52 SOT 16,(2012) wherein the facts were that the appellant sold a house property on 22/10/2007' for Rs. 6.21 crores. The appellant had 50% share in that property. The appellant made an investment of Rs. 50 lakhs on 31/12/2008 in REC Bonds and Rs. 50 lakhs on 26/512008 in NHAI Bonds and claimed exemption of Rs.1 crore u/s. 50EC. The investment in REC Bond was…

Nashoba Trading Company LLP, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 17(2), Mumbai

ITA 2183/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)

Section 143Section 54E

…rieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA),who upheld the order of the AO. 3.Before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the issue is covered by the orders of Aspi Ginwala and Ors. (52 SOT 16), Smt. Sriram Indubai (ITA/1950/Mds./12 AY -2008-09 dt.31.1.13),Leelavati Sayani (49 taxmann.com 579) and Ketan Chemicals (ITA No.6636/ Mum/2013 –AY-09-10 dt.8.4.2015).He also relied upon the case of C. Jaichander (370 ITR 579) of Hon’ble Madras High Court. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA. 4.We have heard the riv…

M/S. Shourie Duplicators Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1871/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Shourie Duplicators Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pvt. Ltd., 16A, Palam Marg, 8(2), New Delhi F-1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaacs0541B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/12/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2006-07. In The Impugned Order, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Sustained The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Hrave Deleted The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.28,46,000/- As There Is No Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. 2. The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Has Disclosed The Complete Transaction In The Audited

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54DSection 54E

…ould only invest a sum of Rs. 50 Lacs on 26/01/2007. The learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Tribunal Ahmedabad bench in the case of Aspi Ginwala, Shriram engineering and Manufacturing industries versus ACIT, circle - 5, Baroda (2012) 52 SOT 16(Ahm.), wherein the assessee made investment in the Bonds beyond the period of six months time limit prescribed under section 54EC as the Bonds were not available in the market before the date, in such circumstances, the Tribunal relying on the circular of the CBDT held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, which was beyond his contro…

Shah Textile P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3731/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal

Section 115JSection 54E

…n of Jaipur Bench referred to by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is against the assessee, learned counsel has brought to our notice two other decisions of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Apsi Ginwala & Ors v/s 10 M/s. Shah Textile Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, [2012] 52 SOT 16 (Ahd.) and ITO v/s Rania Faleiro, [2013] 142 ITD 21 (Panaji) favouring the assessee. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC), he submitted that when there are conflicting decisions, on a particular issue, the decision favourable to the assessee should be followed.…