Charanbir Singh Jolly v. ITO

5 SOT 89Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#15918 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing Charanbir Singh Jolly v. ITO

Flsmidth Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT- 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1636/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1636/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam Vs. Income Tax-1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N]

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…tamp duty payable accrued during Financial Year 1987-88 and the only payment was made in 2011. The Ld. AR has relied on the Explanation 3 to Section 48 of the Act and has contended that Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Charanbir Singh Jolly v. ITO [2006] 5 SOT 89 (Mumbai- Trib.) has held that as per Explanation 3 to Section 48 of the Act, cost :- 7 -: of acquisition referenced only to cost of acquisition and not actual payment made by the assessee. As regard to reversal for revision for doubtful trade receivables, the Ld. AR has submitted that this issue has been examined during original assessment u/s.…

Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

ITA 890/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 132Section 14ASection 250Section 28

…ed as a matter of exception to establish the clear intentions of the legislature particularly in Sec. 2(42) (a) and explanation to Sec. 48. We have gone through the following citations quoted by the assessee in his favour I. Charanbir Singh Jolly vs ITO (2006)5 SOT 89 (Mum) II. Shrimati Lata G.Rohra vs DCIT 9(2008) 21 SOT 541 (Mum) III. Mysore Minerals Ltd Vs CIT (1994) 239 ITR 775(S.C) The judgements relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the case. 11. Assessees emphasis on base year i.e., FY 2006-07 and cost of acquisition i.e. 9 Cr. are relevant for the purposes…

Neen Singh, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1074/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmamrs. Neena Singh Vs. Ito, 141, Stanhill Drive, Surfers Ward-3(1)(2), Paradise, International Taxation Gold Coast, New Delhi Queensland, Australia Pan: Ezups2442R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…) to hold that benefit u/s 48 of indexation should be given on the basis of date of cost of acquisition of asset and not on basis of dates when actual payments have been made. The Bombay ITAT judgment in Charanbir Singh Jolly vs. 8th Income-tax Officer [2006] 5 SOT 89 (MUM.) was also relied. Mrs. Neena Singh 5 4.1 It was submitted on behalf of the assessee on the basis of copy of agreement dated 17.01.2096, placed on page no. 23 to 38 of the paper book, that as per agreement to purchase the schedule of payment was fixed and assessee was expected to make the payment of whole consideration as per payment plan whi…

ITO (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Monish Kaan Tahilramani, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4715/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Makwana- Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 53A

…cited in the 5 Monish Kaan Tahilramani Assessment Year: 2011-12 case of CIT Vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. 122 ITR 594 and Hon’ble jurisdictional Mumbai ITAT in the case of Vandana Rana Roy Vs CIT(A) (ITA No. 6173/M/2011) and Charanbir Singh Jolly Vs ITO (2006) 5 SOT 89 (Mum), I consider it proper and appropriate to hold that the appellant’s request is justified for making claim of Long Term Capital Hain. Thus, after taking note of the various judicial pronouncements, I direct the AO to work out the Long-Term Capital Gain in the hands of the appellant taking the date of acquisition as on 16.03.2005 as claimed by th…

M/S. R.C. Narula & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1028/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 48

…installment and not date of purchase of assets, contrary to the provision of section 48 of the Act. 2. That the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in not following the order of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Charnbir Singh Jolly vs. ITO (Eight), (reported as (2006) 5 SOT 89 Mum, where the Honourable Members held that indexation is to be done from the date of purchase of asset and not the date of payment of installment. ITA No. 6093/Del/2015 & 1028/Del/2014 3 3. The order of the authorities below being contrary to the facts of the case and in law the appeal be allowed. The additional grounds raised by assessee in A.Y…

Sneha Bimal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5489/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263

…um); b) Ms.Madhu Kaul V/s CIT –(2014) 263 ITR 54 (P&H); Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT -344 ITR 501 (P&H); c) d) CIT V/s Ved Parkash And Sons (Huf) (1994) 207 ITR 148 P H, ; e) ACIT V/s Sanjay Kumath (2014) 63 SOT 90 (Indore) f) Charanbir Singh Jolly V/s ITO (2006) 5 SOT 89 (MUM) g) CIT V/s K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59(Del) 7 5489/Mum/2015 7. The lf. AR finally prayed that since the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in view of the facts that the AO has rightly allowed the benefit of indexation to the assessee by taking the date of letter of intent on which t…