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

ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Kosetty Nagaraju, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 343/HYD/2015[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…

ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Kosetty Kishore, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/HYD/2015[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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Angel Infrastructure Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…Ahmadabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Sapnaben Dipakbhai Patel Vs. ITO 73 taxmann.com 288. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 260 ITR 491 as well as decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 and submitted that the Hon’ble Court has held that it is not enough for the revenue to show that the fair market value of property as on the date of transfer exists full value consideration declared by the assessee. In respect of the transfer by any am…

M/S Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…Ahmadabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Sapnaben Dipakbhai Patel Vs. ITO 73 taxmann.com 288. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 260 ITR 491 as well as decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese Vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 and submitted that the Hon’ble Court has held that it is not enough for the revenue to show that the fair market value of property as on the date of transfer exists full value consideration declared by the assessee. In respect of the transfer by any am…

Sri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 910/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay vs CIT reported in 260 ITR 491 (Bom). 10.2. Hence we hold that the reopening made by the ld AO based on absolute incorrect assumption of facts deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed both in law as well as on merits. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo. 2353/Kol/2016 for Asst Year 2007-08 is allowed. ITA No. 910…

Sri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(4)/ Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2353/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2353/Kol/2016 & I.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2018 Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Bijay Shankar Halwasiya -Vs- Ito, Ward-44(4) , Kolkata [Pan: Aaqph 4752 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay vs CIT reported in 260 ITR 491 (Bom). 10.2. Hence we hold that the reopening made by the ld AO based on absolute incorrect assumption of facts deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed both in law as well as on merits. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITANo. 2353/Kol/2016 for Asst Year 2007-08 is allowed. ITA No. 910…

K T Dongre & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 10(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4733/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S. K.T. Dongre & Co. P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1) C/O. Shyam Malpani & Assocaites Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 307, Chartered House Vs. Mumbai 400020 297/299, Dr. C.H. Street Mumbai 400002 Pan – Aaack9366J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Gopal Respondent By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-21, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2013 & It Relates To A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: - “1. The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred As "Cit (A)") Has Erred Confirming The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Making Addition Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,90,67,850/- Based On Agreement For Sale Dated 12.10.2007 Entered Into With M/S. Nensee Construction Pvt. Ltd. Inspite Of The Fact That There Is No Performance On The Part Of The Concerned Parties In Relation To The Such Agreement Of Sale. Therefore, There Is No Transfer Or Deemed Transfer Within The Meaning Of Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Question Of Taxing Such Capital Gains Which Had Not Been Accrued Or Deemed To Had Been Accrued Does Not Arise. Such Long Term Capital Gain Has Been Worked Out By Considering The Sale Consideration At Rs.5,34,02,500/- As Against Agreement Price Of Rs.1,80,00,000/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Utter Disregard To The Pending Litigations I.E. The Company Petition No.809 Of 2003 Filed By An Alleged Creditor For Winding Up Of The Assessee Company & Also A Cloud In The Title Due

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 50C

…t, has been adjudicated by this Tribunal in the case of Azad Zabarcgabd Bhandari Vs ACIT (2013) 58 SOT 347 (Mumbai Trib.), while 7 ITA No. 98/MUM/2015 considering the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom.) as under:- 12. Article 265 of the Constitution of India postulates that there cannot be levy of tax without authority of law. It is not in dispute that capital gains tax can be levied only in the year when the transfer of immovable property takes place. If the AO is of the firm view that the transfer had taken place on 16.03.2005, for capi…

Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2053/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2053/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAJCS4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2054/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag Construction Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, The ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi – 110 076. vs New Delhi. PAN AAHCS8522R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.2055/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Saamag…

Aarti Sanjay Kadam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1190/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.K. Aggarwalmrs. Aarti Sanjay Kadam Income Tax Officer-2(1) 163, Anand Smruti 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Vs. Midc Road, Katrap Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada Badlapur 421503, Thane Kalyan (W), Thane Pan – Agcpk3781A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 131Section 2(47)(v)Section 48Section 50C

…the assessee has transferred the immovable property in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. While doing so he relied upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT 260 ITR 491. 6. The learned A.R. submitted, though the assessee has entered into a development agreement on 05.09.2013, which falls within the relevant previous year, however, as per the terms of the development agreement the consideration to be received by the assessee is 35% of the developed residential area in the housing project and there was no consider…

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Awadhnarayan Laxmi Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are treated as allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3912/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-24 (3), Room No. Mr. Awadhnarayan Laxmi 701 C-11, 7Th Floor, Vs. Singh, 204, Awadh House, B.K.C., Bandra (E), S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aagps0470C Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 238/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. Awadhnarayan Dcit-24 (3), R. No. 701 C- Laxmi Singh, 204, Vs. 11, 7Th Floor, B.K.C., Bandra Awadh House, S.V. (E), Mumbai-400051. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aagps0470C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Vimal Punmiya, Ar Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…her co-owners i.e. Shri Awadhnarayan Singh (ITA No. 7363/Mum/2010) & Shri Satyaprakash Singh (ITA No. 7982/Mum/2010) for AY 2007-08. Referring to and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT 260 ITR 491, the Tribunal held as under: “10. We feel it necessary to discuss about the facts of the case of Charubhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, referred supra, in order to understand the legal proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. In that case, the assessee entered into an agreement on 18.8.1994 to sell the property to a builder for a considerati…

G Bhoopathi Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(5), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1951/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Narasimham, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54F

…er and came to a conclusion that the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act were fulfilled on 11-08-2008 as per the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) and (vi). AO also relied on the following decisions: (i) Chaturbhuj Dwaraka Kapadia Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom); (ii) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (Advance Ruling) (294 ITR 196); (iii) Dr.T.Achutha Rao Vs. ACIT (106 ITD 388) (Hyd); (iv) K.Jeelani Basha Vs. CIT (256 ITR 0282) (Mad-HC); :- 3 -: I.T.A. No. 1951/Hyd/2017 2.1. AO held that transfer took place in the financial year relevant to AY. 2009-10 and worked out the capital gains as under: Rs. Value…

ITO - 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ganpatraj B. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 870/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 45(2)

…n of the land belonging to the assessee during the year under consideration. Under these set of facts, the learned CIT(A) took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia of Bombay Vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) and also decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Crest Hotels Ltd. (2001) 78 ITD 213 and held that the transfer of land has not taken place during the year under consideration so as to attract capital gains tax in terms of section 45(2) of the Act. 3 Shri Ganpatraj B. Mehta 5. The Learned DR strongly supported…

M/S. Sunnygold Wineries Private Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 703/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT DR
Section 38

…partly or fully handed over to the buyer, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) r.w.s. 45 of the Act are met and transfer is completed. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT, reported as 260 ITR 491 wherein it has been held that capital gain was taxable in the year in which such transaction were entered into even if the transfer of immovable property is not effective or complete under the M/s. Sunnygold Wineries Private Limited general rule. Ld. DR further placed reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Dr. Arvind S Phake (supra.) wherein it h…

Dy. Comm. of Income-Tax, Cirlce-1, Nashik vs. M/S. Sidhivinayak Associates, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1350/PUN/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1350/Pun/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)

…sale consideration is to be taxed in the year of sale of such land. In support of his submissions, the ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported as 260 ITR 491. The ld. DR submitted that in so far as the land comprising Gat No.86 is concerned, it is part of same transaction as is evident from MOU dated 19.07.2007 at page No.202 to 217 of the paper book. The land in Gat No.86 cannot be treated as separate/independent transaction. The sale deed in respect of Gat No.86 may have been executed at later p…

T. Rajeswar Rao (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1592/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer…

T. Balakrishna (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1591/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer…

T. Nagraj (HUF), Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration, are allowed

ITA 1590/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45Section 5O

…and others T. Prabhakar Rao (HUF) and others. which is the charging section read with section 2(47(v) of the Act. 6.1 Ld. AR submitted that various judicial rulings support the above view. Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia (2003) (260 ITR 491), Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR), Potla Nageshwar Rao Vs. DClT (2014) 365 ITR 249 (AP). This contention was already accepted by the department as mentioned above, wherein the proceedings were dropped against the notices issued by the intelligence wing and under 133(6) of the Act based on the same facts. Hence, there is no transfer…