CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.

MR. DOLLAR CHUNILAL MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()**

…assessee placed reliance on the decisions of *Hon'ble Supreme Court* in case of *CIT v. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd.*, reported in *(2016) 366 ITR 635* as well as on the decision of *Hon'ble Bombay High Court* in case of *CIT v.Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd*.,reported in *281 ITR 210*, in support of its claim that exemption under sections 54E/54F is available even in respect of capital gains arising from depreciable assets. - **3.2.** The Ld.CIT(A),however,noted that the assessee had not claimed the exemption under section 54F in the return of income originally filed.On this basis,the Ld.CIT(A) rejected the assessee's submiss…

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

…applicable on capital gain arising on sale of depreciable asset under section ITA Nos. 890 1348/Mum/2023 & C.O. 71/Mum/2023 Reliance Power Ltd. 50, by referring and relying upon the decision of jurisdiction High Court in CIT vs Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (2025) 281 ITR 210 and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Dempo Co. Ltd. 387 ITR 354, has held that deeming fiction is only for the purpose of section 50 and all for other provisions including section 74, the asset remains a long term capital asset. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed that assessee is eligible to set off long term capital losses agains…

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

…r of capital assets on which depreciation has been allowed in the first year itself and which is deemed as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ace Builders (P.) Limited(281 ITR 210) even though the said decision was rendered in the context of eligibility of deduction under Section 54E”. The Hon’ble High Court again followed the principle laid in case of CIT vs Ace Builders Pvt Ltd (supra) and observed and held that under:- 3. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent - ass…

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…which depreciation has been allowed in the first year itself and which is deemed as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income Tax Act relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ace Builders (P.) Limited([2005] 144 Taxman 855/281 ITR 210 (Bombay)) even though the said decision was rendered in the context of eligibility of deduction under Section 54E". The Hon'ble High Court again followed the principle laid in case of Ace Builders Pvt Ltd (supra) and observed and held that under:- 3. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent - a…

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

…ich depreciation has\nbeen allowed in the first year itself and which is deemed as short term capital gain\nunder Section 50 of the Income Tax Act relying upon the judgment of this Court in\nthe case of CIT V/s. Ace Builders (P.) Limited([2005] 144 Taxman 855/281 ITR 210\n(Bombay)) even though the said decision was rendered in the context of eligibility of\ndeduction under Section 54E\".\nThe Hon'ble High Court again followed the principle laid in case of Ace Builders\nPvt Ltd (supra) and observed and held that under:-\n3. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of\nthe respond…

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

…observed as under:-\n“1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.\nIt is fairly conceded that the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this court in case of\nCIT vs. ACE Builders Pvt. Ltd, reported in [2006] 281 ITR 210. The said judgment has\nbeen approved by the Apex Court in the case of CIT. Panji vs. VS.Dempo Company Ltd.\nreported in [2016] 74. Taxmann.com 15 (SC). As the issue raised in the present appeal is\nalready covered by the above referred judgment, no substantial question of law arises.”\n43. Ergo, this precise issue decided by the tribunal has bee…

LATE PRAVINCHANDRA DWARKADAS DALAL (LEGAL HEIR HITEN PRAVINCHANDRA DALAL),MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 42(3)(1) ERSTWHILE CIRCLE 33(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

…al gain on sale of depreciable asset. It was held that short term capital gain computed on long term depreciable asset can be set off against long term capital loss. For this, Hon'ble Court followed its earlier decision in the case CIT Vs. Ace Builders [2006] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) wherein it was held that “by virtue of section 50 of the Act, only the capital gains is to be computed in terms thereof and be deemed to be short term capital gain. However, this deeming fiction is restricted only for the purpose of section 50 of the Act and the benefit u/s. 54E of the Act which is available only to long term capital gains…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…17. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of Rs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the case of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 (Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid decisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and 49 and does not apply to other pro…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…17. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of Rs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the case of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 (Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid decisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and 49 and does not apply to other pro…

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED (MERGED ENTITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below:\n\nSr

…. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of \nRs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following \nthe decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case \nof CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the \ncase of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 \n(Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid \ndecisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to othe…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…20-21 17.2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of Rs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the case of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 (Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid decisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and 49 and does not apply to other provisio…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., DELHI

…. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of \nRs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following \nthe decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case \nof CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the \ncase of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 \n(Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid \ndecisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to othe…

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…17. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of Rs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the case of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 (Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid decisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and 49 and does not apply to other pro…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…17. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of Rs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the case of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 (Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid decisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and 49 and does not apply to other pro…

DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

…. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of \nRs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following \nthe decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case \nof CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the \ncase of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 \n(Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid \ndecisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to othe…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

…n17. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of\nRs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following\nthe decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case\nof CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the\ncase of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587\n(Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid\ndecisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only\nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and\n49 and does not apply to other pro…

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

…. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of \nRs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following \nthe decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case \nof CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the \ncase of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 \n(Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid \ndecisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to othe…

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided \nas per the table below: \n\nSr

…. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of \nRs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following \nthe decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case \nof CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the \ncase of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 \n(Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid \ndecisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to othe…

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground so raised for Assessment \nYear 2004-05 is dismissed as infructuous

…. 2. Ld. CIT(A) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to grant exemption of \nRs.54,49,21,366/- u/s.54EC as claimed by the assessee by following \nthe decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case \nof CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd., [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and in the \ncase of CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 587 \n(Gau) of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati. The essence of the aforesaid \ndecisions is that fiction created in section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to othe…