Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

260 ITR 491High Court2003#662 most cited

What is Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT authority for?

For capital gains purposes, a 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) occurs and capital gains arise in the year when possession of the property is handed over in part performance of a contract, such as a joint development agreement. This was the settled position before the specific provisions of section 45(5A) were introduced.

150

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT · section 2(47)(v) · section 45 · section 53A Transfer of Property Act · capital gains · date of transfer · joint development agreement · JDA · possession in part performance · transfer of capital asset · section 45(5A)

Also reported as

180 CTR 107

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 45Section 53A of the Transfer of Property ActSection 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53asection 53section 2(47)joint development agreementjdatransfer of capital assetdate of transfersection 45section 54long term capital gainfair market value

Judgments citing Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…as a result the assessee was required to withhold tax at the time of payment of refundable security deposit under section 194IA. In support of this conclusion the A.O. has relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v CIT 260 ITR 491 and the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Dr T.K Dayalu ITA No 3165/2005 (Kar). 3.59 The learned AR submitted that the above conclusion of the is bad in law. The has erred in not appreciating that the provisions of section 2(47) defining the term ‘transfer’ does not apply in context of section 194IA. 3.60 The term “transfer” under section 2(47) is…

Mr. Maurice Patrick De Rebello, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1351/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ashok A.Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

…ities by depositing the original title deeds and on security of development rights. (ix) Advertising and marketing rights to developer. 5. The Assessing Officer further stated that all the six conditions laid down in Chaturbuj Dwarkadas Kapadia’s case (2003) 260 ITR 491 are satisfied in this case and hit by sec.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The A.O. concluded that the contract, read as a whole, indicates passing or transferring of complete control over the property in favour of the developer, then the date of the contract would be relevant to decide the year of chargeability and even arrangement con…

Sri K.G.Subbarama Setty, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2318/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT
Section 148Section 234B

…ncial year relevant to assessment year under consideration and that chargeability to capital gains arises during the year under consideration. He also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay high Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs CIT reported in 260 ITR 491. 3. Ld. AO thus computed the capital gains under the head short term in the hands of assessee is before us in proportionate to the share in developed construction. Ld. AO also considered the rate fixed by government of Karnataka at Rs.760 per square feet as sale consideration received in exchange of 61.50% undivided share of land with the develop…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Express Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5552/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Mohan, D.R
Section 35DSection 35D(2)

…rship of land carried with it bundle of rights attached to it, of which the right of development is most important one. [Para 10]" 5.2.7 Similar interpretation was done by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay v. CIT 260 ITR 491/129 Taxman 497. The principles of above ratio provide guidance in the instant case and in my opinion, the appellant possessed rights of an "Assignor" and by relinquishing/transferring those rights, it suffered a loss that should not be denied in the interest of natural justice. 5.2.8 The claim of appellant in respect of s. 36(1)(vii) was rightly…

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

…4 and which falls under AY 2004-05. According to AO, the income is chargeable to tax in the year in which the development agreement was entered. In this regard, AO relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chatrabhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia – 260 ITR 491 (Bom), in which capital gains should be charged to tax in the year in which development agreement was entered. Accordingly, AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and reopened the assessment for AY 2004-05 and assessed the income on protective basis as under:- Capital Assets transferred to stock in trade - 15,22,66,333/- (as claimed by the assessee…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Shri. M. Nagaraju, Bangalore

ITA 210/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-07 Late Sri M. Nagaraju, L/R Sri N. Abhilash, The Income Tax Officer, No. 27/8, Maruthi Nilaya, Ward – 5 (2) (4), Vs. 3Rd Main, Bangalore. Hanumanthnagar, Bangalore – 560 019. Pan: Abqpn2924H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 148

…ed 26/01/1996 and subsequent agreements based upon the material on record and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. ITA No. 210/Bang/2016 & C.O. No. 51/Bang/2016 Page 5 of 11 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay vs.CIT 260 ITR 491, wherein it was held that substantial payment, substantial permissions coupled with the parting of the possession of the property are the determining factors so as to treat the transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of the act. From the perusal of the above clauses it is evident that the appellant is entitled as consideration, a refundable advance of Rs.5 lakhs ,…

Smt. Sridevi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1449/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Sridevi, No. 2395, E-Block, The Income Tax Officer, Sahakaranagar, Vs. Ward – 6 (3) (3), Bangalore – 560 092. Bangalore. Pan: Aicpr5099Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri U. Lakshmoji Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri U. Lakshmoji Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 2Section 3Section 54F

…390/Bang/2015 of the Act as held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dr.T.K. Dayalu (supra) in para 8 as under : 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court (sic-Bombay High Court) in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (2003) 180 CTR (Bom) 107 : (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom) held that the date relevant for attracting capital gain having regard to the definition under s. 2(47) of the Act is the date on which possession is handed over by the developer and has observed as follows : "Under s. 2(47)(v), any transaction involving allowing of possession to be taken over or retained in part performance of a contract of…

Smt. A.P. Lakshmi Gowri, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 957/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 234ASection 45Section 53ASection 54F

…construction as per the sanctioned plans. The power of attorney executed on the same day was only to facilitate the developer to take necessary approvals for executing the contract. It has been held in the case of Dwarka Das Kapadia v. CIT reported in [2003] 260 ITR 491 that transfer of possession of the property at the time of entering into JDA can be recognized as transfer under sec. 2(47)(v) of the Act only in cases where the contract read as a whole indicates that at that point of time there is transfer of complete control over the property in favor of the developer. The test for determining whether any pers…

Sri. A.R. Prasad, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 956/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT DR
Section 2Section 234ASection 45Section 53ASection 54F

…construction as per the sanctioned plans. The power of attorney executed on the same day was only to facilitate the developer to take necessary approvals for executing the contract. It has been held in the case of Dwarka Das Kapadia v. CIT reported in [2003] 260 ITR 491 that transfer of possession of the property at the time of entering into JDA can be recognized as transfer under sec. 2(47)(v) of the Act only in cases where the contract read as a whole indicates that at that point of time there is transfer of complete control over the property in favor of the developer. The test for determining whether any pers…

ITO 32(3)(4), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India Staff Vaibhav Co-Op. Hsg. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5324/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Ito-32(3)(4) Vs. State Bank Of India Staff Room No.103, 1St Floor Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.8/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5324/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2011-12) State Bank Of India Vs. Ito-32(3)(4) Room No.103, 1St Floor Staff Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia Assessee By Shri Dr. P. Daniel Date Of Hearing 13/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

…e and assessee should have offered total receipts for taxation in the financial year 2010-11 relevant to Asst Year 2011-12. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarikadas Kapadia vs CIT reported in 260 ITR 491(Bom), wherein it was held that capital gain arises on the date of development agreement followed by part performance of the agreement. 4.1. The ld AO worked out the total compensation payable to the society on the above mentioned transaction pursuant to Development 7 ITA No.5324/Mum/2016 & CO No.8/Mum/2018 State Bank of India Staff Vaibhav Co-o…

ITO 25(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Simandhar Associatin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3117/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito -25(2)(3) M/S Simandhar Association Room No. 105, 1St Floor A-402, Trishala Tower Vs. Building C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhawan Vazira Naka, Borivali(W) Bandr Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 092 Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan Aadas1997C (Revenue) (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant KundaliaFor Respondent: Shri D.G.Pansari & Ms. Neelima Nadkarni
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ion which were not specified in the original agreement. 5. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ad in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v/s CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom) is squarely applicable to the instant case.” 6. “The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds be st aside and that of the AO be restored 7. “The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground” 2. The common issue raised by the revenue in the various grounds of appeal as reproduced above is ag…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Kohinoor Hatcheries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 574/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bledcit, Central-2(1), Vs. D. Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8276 R Dcit, Central-2(1), D. Raghava Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Banjara Hilld, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8275 N Dcit, Central-2(1), M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G C.O.No. 21/Hyd/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 574/Hyd/2018) (Asst. Years : 2009-10) M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Dcit, Central-2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Hyderabad Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Devdas – CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…d the same was not cancelled. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao (supra) and also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs CIT [(2003) 180 CTR 107 (Bom.)] and strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 8. Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer simply taken into consideration of the date of agreement and came to an erroneous conclusion that the capital gain has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee without considering…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. D Raghava Rao, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 2067/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bledcit, Central-2(1), Vs. D. Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8276 R Dcit, Central-2(1), D. Raghava Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Banjara Hilld, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8275 N Dcit, Central-2(1), M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G C.O.No. 21/Hyd/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 574/Hyd/2018) (Asst. Years : 2009-10) M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Dcit, Central-2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Hyderabad Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Devdas – CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…d the same was not cancelled. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao (supra) and also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs CIT [(2003) 180 CTR 107 (Bom.)] and strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 8. Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer simply taken into consideration of the date of agreement and came to an erroneous conclusion that the capital gain has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee without considering…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. D Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 2066/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Bledcit, Central-2(1), Vs. D. Venkateswara Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8276 R Dcit, Central-2(1), D. Raghava Rao, Hyderabad Flat No. 201, Sri Chaitanya Residency, Street No. 2, Sagar Society, Banjara Hilld, Hyderabad. Pan No. Abppd 8275 N Dcit, Central-2(1), M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G C.O.No. 21/Hyd/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 574/Hyd/2018) (Asst. Years : 2009-10) M/S. Kohinoor Hatcheries Dcit, Central-2(1), Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 801, Hyderabad Phase-I, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aaack 8477 G (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Devdas – CAFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…d the same was not cancelled. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao (supra) and also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs CIT [(2003) 180 CTR 107 (Bom.)] and strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 8. Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer simply taken into consideration of the date of agreement and came to an erroneous conclusion that the capital gain has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee without considering…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Smt. Lakshmamma, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1696/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…ed that the learned CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessees with the following observations :- “4.1 Further, the appellant relied on the following case laws in support of his claim / appeals. Dr.T.K.Dayalu v. CIT (ITA 3205/2005) ChaturbujDwarda Kapadia – 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) SourashtraKatch Stock Exchange – Civil Appeal No.1171 of 2004 (SC) India Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 166 ITR 454 (Kar.) Quilen Marine Produce Co. – 157 ITR 448 (Ker.) Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. – 233 ITR 700 (Ker.) M/s.MinitexAerotools Pvt. Ltd. – ITA 1228/Bang/13 – ITAT Bangalore. Smt.Shiromi Banerjee – MP No.56/Bang/11 – ITAT Bangalore La…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Smt. Lakshmamma, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1695/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…ed that the learned CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessees with the following observations :- “4.1 Further, the appellant relied on the following case laws in support of his claim / appeals. Dr.T.K.Dayalu v. CIT (ITA 3205/2005) ChaturbujDwarda Kapadia – 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) SourashtraKatch Stock Exchange – Civil Appeal No.1171 of 2004 (SC) India Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 166 ITR 454 (Kar.) Quilen Marine Produce Co. – 157 ITR 448 (Ker.) Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. – 233 ITR 700 (Ker.) M/s.MinitexAerotools Pvt. Ltd. – ITA 1228/Bang/13 – ITAT Bangalore. Smt.Shiromi Banerjee – MP No.56/Bang/11 – ITAT Bangalore La…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…ed that the learned CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessees with the following observations :- “4.1 Further, the appellant relied on the following case laws in support of his claim / appeals. Dr.T.K.Dayalu v. CIT (ITA 3205/2005) ChaturbujDwarda Kapadia – 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) SourashtraKatch Stock Exchange – Civil Appeal No.1171 of 2004 (SC) India Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 166 ITR 454 (Kar.) Quilen Marine Produce Co. – 157 ITR 448 (Ker.) Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. – 233 ITR 700 (Ker.) M/s.MinitexAerotools Pvt. Ltd. – ITA 1228/Bang/13 – ITAT Bangalore. Smt.Shiromi Banerjee – MP No.56/Bang/11 – ITAT Bangalore La…

Income Tax Officer, Bangalore vs. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1693/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…ed that the learned CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessees with the following observations :- “4.1 Further, the appellant relied on the following case laws in support of his claim / appeals. Dr.T.K.Dayalu v. CIT (ITA 3205/2005) ChaturbujDwarda Kapadia – 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) SourashtraKatch Stock Exchange – Civil Appeal No.1171 of 2004 (SC) India Tin Industries Pvt. Ltd. – 166 ITR 454 (Kar.) Quilen Marine Produce Co. – 157 ITR 448 (Ker.) Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. – 233 ITR 700 (Ker.) M/s.MinitexAerotools Pvt. Ltd. – ITA 1228/Bang/13 – ITAT Bangalore. Smt.Shiromi Banerjee – MP No.56/Bang/11 – ITAT Bangalore La…

K Gopal Raj, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Cen.Circle-1(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 773/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…id view of the matter the CIT(A) was correct in holding that under no circumstances the capital gain could have been charged to tax in the impugned assessment year. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Vs ACIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008 and further the second d…

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad vs. K Gopal Raj, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 765/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…id view of the matter the CIT(A) was correct in holding that under no circumstances the capital gain could have been charged to tax in the impugned assessment year. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Vs ACIT, 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) and K. Radhika Vs DCIT, ITAT, Hyderabad, 47 SOT 180, also support the view that the capital gain cannot be charged to tax in the impugned assessment year i.e. 2008-09. However, it is a fact on record that the developer was handed over the possession of the property after obtaining permission from GHMC on 05/08/2008 and further the second d…