How many judgments cite Atul G. Puranik v. ITO?

43 judgments on BharatTax cite Atul G. Puranik v. ITO (132 ITD 499), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Atul G. Puranik v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 50C, Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 54D, Section 56(2)(x), Section 139(1).

Atul G. Puranik v. ITO

132 ITD 499Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#2750 most cited

What is Atul G. Puranik v. ITO authority for?

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a deeming provision, applies only to the transfer of "land or building or both" and therefore does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Atul G. Puranik v. ITO · Section 50C · transfer of leasehold rights · applicability of Section 50C · capital gains computation · land or building or both · deeming provision · stamp duty value · full value of consideration · ITAT Mumbai

Also reported as

11 Taxmann.com 9211 ITR 120

Sections most often in play

Section 50C Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54D Section 56(2)(x)Section 139(1)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)

Issues it is cited on

compulsory acquisition section 50c(1)section 10(37)full value of consideration section 50c section 50 section 48 date of transfer transfer of capital asset stamp duty value short term capital gains fair market value

Judgments citing Atul G. Puranik v. ITO

Hemant Ranjit Khatau, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6899/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 54E

…pply only when there is a transfer of land and/or building. In the present case, there is a transfer of 'tenancy rights' in building and not transfer of the building. In this regard, reliance is placed on Tribunal's order in the case of Atul G. Puranik v. ITO 132 ITD 499 (Mum). The said order of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Revenue as no appeal against the same has been filed before the High Court. Considering this fact, the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd. 389 ITR 68 has dismissed the Revenue's appeal. In view of the above, I submit that the Tribunal may be pleased to…

Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Dhanbad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Dhanbad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 234/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2015-16 Awadhesh Kumar Singh Acit, Circle-1(1) बनाम / Op. A.G. Church, Gandhi Dhanbad V/S. Road, Dhanbad -826001 [Pan No.Ajhps 6352 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri K.N.Prasad, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Addl.Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-03-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-03-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…including that of interest to follow as per law. 3. Next comes the second issue of sec.50C application qua assessee’s leasehold rights head. Suffice to say, this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in Atul G. Puranik vs. Income Tax Officer 12(1)(1) (2011) 132 ITD 499 (Mum) holds that sec.50C does not apply in case of leasehold rights only since not causing under the two corresponding categories of capital assets therein i.e. “land or building” only. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the impugned addition of Rs.28,00,000/- under this latter head therefore. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed…

Ritz Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1945/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 50C

…ncome of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd., [2016] 389 ITR 68 (Bom.) and the Tribunal’s (Mumbai) order in the case of Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO, [2011] 11 ITR 120 (Mumbai) and it was brought to my notice that Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal in the case of Atul G. Puranik (supra). The ld. AR also relied upon the order in the case of DCIT, Central Circle-VI vs. 5 I.T.A. No. 1945/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ritz Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Tejinder Si…

Shree Laxmi Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 15(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 798/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shree Laxmi Estate Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4704, Gateway Plaza, Ward – 15(3)(3), Hiranandani Gardens, Aayakar Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Mk Road Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aafcs5707A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 68

…building or both cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is enacted and is therefore not applicable in the instant case. The Ld. AR 14 M/s. Shree Laxmi Estate Pvt. Ltd., has relied on the Coordinate Bench's decision in the case of Atul G. Puranik (132 ITD 499) (Mum Trib) supra which squarely supports the case of the assessee. In that case, the assessee was allotted lease right in a plot for a period of sixty years. The relevant finding of the Coordinate Bench contain at para 11.4 of its order is reproduced as under: "In view of the aforenoted judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and that of t…

Gopal Krishan Dubey, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 6085/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…8-09) order dated 7.6.20013 (Trib.); ITO vs, Shri Chander Shekar ITA No. 430/D/2013 AY 2009-10 dated 4.3.20019; CIT vs. Green Field Hotels and Estates (P) Ltd. 389 ITR 68 (Bom.) (HCV); ITO vs. Hariom Gupta 45 ITR (Trib) 137 Lucknowl (Tri.); Atul G Puranik 132 ITD 499 (Mum( (Tri.); Kanecast P. Ltd. vs. ITO 68 SOT 199 (Pune) (Tri.); Mrs. Rekha Agrawal vs. ITO 79 Taxmann.com 290 (Jaipr) (Tri.); and Baniara Engs. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No. 635/Kol/2018 order dated 4.7.2018 (Tri.). 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the re…

Powernetics Equipment India P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ort also indicate that the valuation was undertaken as plot of land and not as 'leasehold rights'. This also supports our opinion that assessee has more than leasehold rights on the plot of land" 4.8 In this decision the case of Atul G. Puranik v. ITO (2011) 132 ITD 499/11 taxmann.com 92 (Mum) and ITO v. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. (IT 5 M/s. Powernetics Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.341 (Mum) of 2010, cited by the appellant before me were considered. The additional ground and ground of appeal no 1 is therefore dismissed.” 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record,…

M/S. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ITO 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 152/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 2Section 50BSection 50C

…[ITA 152/Ind/2015] [M/s. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd. ITO-3(1) C/o Shri Jagdish Sharma Indore बनाम/ J-59, MIG Colony, Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AADCM7398D Appellant by Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Shri Kapil Shah, A.Rs Respondent by Shri Rajib Jain, D.R. Date of Hearing: 27.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by…

Late Shri Prakashchandra Goyal, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.29/Ahd/2017/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Prakashchandra Goyal(L/H Of Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Late Shri Kapil Prakashchandra Ward-1(3)(4), Surat. Goyal), A-1002, Meghdhanush Apartment Sarelawadi, Ghoddod Road, Surat अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Vinod Goyal – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr.Dr 01.11.2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat(In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 17.11.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14 Which In Turn Has Arisen From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(4), Surat(In Short “The Ao”) Dated 14.03.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act,1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(a)Section 50Section 50C

…ntial for application of section 50C that transfer may not be of a capital asset being land or building or both. The assessee has transferred is lease holding rights in land and building. The ld.Counsel further relied in the case of Atul Puranik Vs ITO [2011] 132 ITD 499 (Bombay) wherein it was held that section 50C applies Shri Prakashchandra Goyal (L/h of Late Kapil Prakashchandra Goyal) Vs. ITO, Ward -1(3)(4)/ITA Page 6 of 6 No.29/Ahd/2017/SRT/AY.2013-14 only to a capital asset being land or building or both it cannot be made applicable to lease holding rights in a land as the assessee transferred leasing rig…

DCIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Piroj Palace P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 857/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), M/S Piroj Palace P. Ltd., R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, 134 Nagindas Master Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Fort, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aafcp0219E (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 171/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.857/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Piroj Palace P. Ltd., The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, 134 Nagindas Master R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aafcp0219E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru (DR)

Section 143Section 50CSection 50c

…rights) Assessment Year 2005-06 whether provisions of section 50C could not be applied to sale of development rights of land owned by assessee- Head, yes (para 3.11) [ in favour of the assessee]”. Atul G. Puranik vs. Income-tax Officer, 12(1) (1) reported in 132 ITD 499 (Mum) dt. 13.05.2011 ITAT Á’ Bench. “Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Capital gains – Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases- Assessment Year 2006-07-Whether in view of provisions of section 50C, deeming fiction of substituting adopted or assessed or assessable value by stamp valuation authority as full value o…

ITO 1(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mahesh Conbuild P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5808/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Hiro Rai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Singh, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69B

…ITA.Nos.4382 & 5808/Mum/2016 Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एच” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" एवं "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.4382/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer-1(2)(1) Jas Propbuild Private Limited Marathon Innova, 1s t Floor Room No.536, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ M.K.Road B-1/101 Mumbai-400 020 Opp. Peninsula Corporate Park Vs. Off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel(W)Mumbai-400 013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/…

ITO 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jas Propbuild P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4382/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Hiro Rai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Singh, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69B

Pandharinath Balkrishna Gharat, Raigad vs. ITO WD 2, Panvel

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

ITA 186/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 186/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…e is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. As cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee, the decision of Mumbai Bench ITAT in the case of Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO [2011] 132 ITD 499 (Mum), which is exactly on identical facts and finally held in Para 10.5 as under: - “10.5 Having held that sec. 49(1) is not applicable, the immediate question which arises for consideration then is that what is the cost of acquisition of rights in the Plot transferred on 25-08- 2005 to M/s. Pathik Construction. The ld. A.R. argued that the mar…

DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Automobile Products of India Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6197/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit-15(1)(1), M/S Automobile Products Of Room No.470, 4Th Floor, India Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 63-A, North Phase, Sidco Vs. M.K. Road, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Mumbai-400020 Chennai-600098 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aabca0725C

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45Section 50CSection 6

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘एच’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 DCIT-15(1)(1), M/s Automobile Products of Room No.470, 4th Floor, India Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 63-A, North Phase, Sidco Vs. M.K. Road, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Mumbai-400020 Chennai-600098 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AABCA0725C Shri Ram Tiwari-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assess…

Keshavji B. Gala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6023/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 17(2)(iii)

…, [2007] 163 taxmand 225 (Del.); ii) Superintendent (DDO) v/s ITO, [2012] 53 SOT 295 (Del.); iii) CIT v/s Sarjan Realities Ltd., [2014] 220 Taxman 112 (Guj.); iv) Mrs. Rekha Agarwal v/s ITO, [2017] 79 taxmann.com 290 (Jai.); v) Atul G. Puranik v/s ITO, [2011] 132 ITD 499 (Mum.). 7 Shri Keshavji Bhuralal Gala 6. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We have patiently and carefully considered rival contentions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. It is evident from…

ITO 22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Liladhar R. Tandel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross

ITA 959/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicil Member

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…r consideration is squarely covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P) Ltd., 77 Taxman.com 308. Furthermore, in the following judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal have taken this view:-  Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (132 ITD 499 (Mum))  Pratap Steel Re-rolling Mills P Ltd - 155 TTJ 294 (Mum)  ACIT vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013 dated 09.10.2015)  Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 7231/Mum/2010 dated 30.11.2015)  ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR (Trib) 137)  ITO vs. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (155 TTJ 294)  Kancast P. Ltd. vs. ITO (…

Kajal Paritosh Parlekar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5614/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Kajal Paritosh Parelkar, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.123, Flat No.2, Ward 21(1)(2), Vs. C-10, R.No.604, 6 Th Floor, Ashish Building, Jvpd Scheme, Gulmohar Cross Road No.10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Afkpp0058E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR

Section 148Section 50C

…ities as well as the relevant material placed before me, I find, assessee surrendered the tenancy rights and earned capital gains. However, assessee relied on the binding Coordinate Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO [2011] (132 ITD 499) (Bom.) wherein, the Tribunal held that the lease right in a plot cannot be considered as „land‟ or „building‟ or „both‟. Therefore, the provisions of section 50C cannot be applied in the case of lease holding rights in land. Further, in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Munsons Textiles in ITA No.6329/M/2010, dated 3.2.2012 the Tribunal gave relief to t…

ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. L.P. Choraria Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue as well as CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5674/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito 4(2)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/S. L.P.Choraria Traders Pvt. Ltd., 158/164, Laxmi Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaacl2666C Appellant) .. Respondent) & Co No.42/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2011-12) M/S. L.P.Choraria Vs. Ito 4(2)(4), Mumbai Traders Pvt. Ltd., 158/164, Laxmi Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aaacl2666C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 50C

…We also found that AO has not disputed the fact that assessee was in receipt of any consideration other than monthly rent. CIT(A) has also considered the scope of deeming provisions u/s.50C on the basis of decision of Mumbai Tribunal in case of Atul G Puranik 132 ITD 499. The CIT(A) has also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements laid down in case of Munsons Textiles for the 7 ITA No.5674-2014 & CO42-2016 L.P.Choraria Traders Pvt. Ltd., applicability of provisions of Section 50C. After consideration of judicial pronouncements, the CIT(A) held that deeming provisions of Section 50C being a legal fiction cannot…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya D Mahadevia, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1351/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1351/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Acit 19(1), Mumbai Vs. Shri Aditya D Mahadevia E-12, Sea Face Park Bhula Bhai Desai Road Mumbai - 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm3641A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.166/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1351/Mum/2015) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Shri Aditya D Mahadevia Vs. Acit 19(1), Mumbai E-12, Sea Face Park Bhula Bhai Desai Road Mumbai - 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm3641A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri A.K.Dhondial याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Jitendera Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/10/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2011-2012 & Cross Objection By The Assessee. 2. The Grievance Of Revenue Relates To Deleting The Addition Of Rs.41,47,204/- Made By Ao On Account Of Transfer Of Lease Hold Rights In The Property Under Section 50C Of The It Act.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.DhondialFor Respondent: Shri Jitendera Jain

Section 50C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘एच’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.1351/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) ACIT 19(1), Mumbai Vs. Shri Aditya D Mahadevia E-12, Sea Face Park Bhula bhai Desai Road Mumbai - 400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AABPM3641A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND Cross Objection No.166/Mum/2016 (Arising out of ITA No.1351/Mum/2015) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Shri Aditya D Mahadevia Vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai E-12, Sea…

ITO 22(3)(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Meghi Parbat Patel, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6390/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-22(3)(2) Shri Meghji Parbat Patel, 3Rd Floor, Room No.307, Prop. G.D.Enterprises, बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Flat B-5, Plot No.46, Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Anand Niketan Chs, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Afmpp7902H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…on the following judicial pronouncements of various Benches of the ITAT: - (i) ACIT vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013 dated 09.10.2015) (ii) Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 7231/Mum/2010 dated 30.11.2015) (iii) Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (132 ITD 499) (iv) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR (Trib) 137) (v) ITO vs. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (155 TTJ 294) 7 Shri Meghji Parbat Patel ITA Nos.6390/Mum/2014 vi) Kancast P. Ltd. vs. ITO (68 SOT 110) 5.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and contended that section 50C of the Act…

DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai vs. Kantaben C. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for A

ITA 2072/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Jasbir S. ChouhanFor Respondent: Shri. H.P. Mahajani

Section 153A

…-, being the premium paid by the assessee for obtaining the said land. As rightly submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, a similar issue had come up for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (132 ITD 499) wherein a similar plot of land was allotted to the assessee as compensation in lieu of agricultural land acquired by the Government under the same scheme called “12.5% scheme” and the issue was determination of cost of acquisition of the said plot of land for the purpose of computing capital gains. In this regard, the Tribunal noted that the mar…