CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.

281 ITR 210High Court2005#1291 most cited

What is CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. authority for?

The deeming fiction in Section 50, which treats capital gains from depreciable assets as short-term, applies only for the purpose of computing capital gains under that section. For other provisions, such as set-off of losses under Section 74 or deductions under Section 54E/54EC, the asset's original character (long-term or short-term) is to be considered.

88

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. · Ace Builders · Section 50 · Section 74 · Section 54E · Section 54EC · depreciable asset capital gains · deemed short-term capital gain · set-off long-term capital loss · long-term capital asset · scope of section 50 · capital gains on depreciable assets

Also reported as

144 Taxmann 855

Sections most often in play

Section 50Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JBSection 48Section 49Section 112Section 50CSection 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 54esection 80absection 70(2)section 10(15)section 80mlong-term capital assetsection 10(33)section 54ecsection 14a(1)section 2(42a)section 36(1)(viii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.

DCIT - 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Housing Development Finance Corporartion Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2861/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advoc

…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 RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2609/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

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 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2326/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh

…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. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 2093/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…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 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2867/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5033/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4314/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

…-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…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4313/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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…

Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3785/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri Ninad Patade, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT DR
Section 1

…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…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 4315/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

…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 Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and
Section 1

…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…

Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

ITA 2801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 194ASection 201

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3063/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) & Assistant Vs. Patel Engineering Limited Commissioner of Patel Estate Off. S.V.Road Income Tax (TDS)2(1) Jogeshwari West / DCIT (CC) 3(4) Maharashtra-400 102 Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AAACP2567L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.2802/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2018-19) Patel Engineering Limited Vs. Assistant Patel Estate Commissioner of Off. S.V.Road Income Tax Jogeshwari West (TDS)2(1) /DCIT Maharashtra-400102 (CC)-3(4) Mumbai PAN/GI…

Omnific, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer .21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5388/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 48Section 49Section 50Section 50(1)Section 54E

…been computed u/s. 50(1) which was on account of business assets on which depreciation has been claimed. This issue now stands covered by the series of judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court following the ratio of VIT vs. Ace Builders reported in 281 ITR 210. This judgment of the Hon’ble High Court has also been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dempo & Company Ltd. 3 Omnific The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirming the order of the Bombay High Court is as under:- “1. In the return filed by the respondent/assessee for the Assessment Year 1989-90 th…

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Ashok Narendra Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3373/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year 2018-19 Acit, Circle – 19(1) Ashok Narendra Mehta, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 132, 13Th Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Siddhesh Darshan, Mumbai. 10Th Khetwadi Main Road, Khetwadi, Mumbai Pan : Aivpm9318A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-08-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-08-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2018-19 ACIT, Circle – 19(1) Ashok Narendra Mehta, 5th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 132, 13th Floor, Lalbaug, vs. Siddhesh Darshan, Mumbai. 10th Khetwadi Main Road, Khetwadi, Mumbai PAN : AIVPM9318A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 13-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28-08-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the or…

Dy. CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

ITA 3083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2697/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year :2017-18) & M/s. Asian Paints Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Asian Paints House Income Tax, LTU 6A, Shanti Nagar Circle 2, Vakola Pipeline Lane World Trade Centre 1 Santacruz (East) Cuffee Parade S.O. Mumbai-400 055 Mumbai-400 005 Maharashtra PAN/GIR No.AAACA3622K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.3063/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year :2017-18) & Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Asian Paints Limited Income Tax, LTU Asian Paints House Circle 2, 6A, Sh…

Sonia Pathak Khanna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1193/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 541Section 54F

…ion under Section 54F of the Act or Section 54 of the Act as the original property sold was held for more than 36 months and is a long term capital asset. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. 281 ITR 210 Bombay, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Dempo Company Ltd. 387 ITR 354. On the issue of the decision relied upon by the learned CIT (A) in case of Sakthi Metal Depot (supra) of Hon'ble Kerala High Court 333 ITR 492, he submits that in that judgment the deduction for section 54/54F of the Act Sona Pathak Khanna; A.Y. 2014-…

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Claris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 295/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 295/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 The D.C.I.T, M/S Claris Lifesciences Limited, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Claris Corporate Hq, Ahmedabad. Near Parimal Rly. Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacc6366Q

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R
Section 50Section 54ESection 70Section 74

…upon several case laws and the same is analysed as below: i. ACIT v. Manali Investments (ITAT, Mumbai) [139 TTJ 0411] Ii. ACIT v. Parrys System Private Limited (Bombay High Court) [384 ITR 0264] iii. CIT vs. Ace Builders Private Limited (Bombay High Court) [ 281 ITR 210] iv. DCIT vs. Himalaya Machineries Private Limited (Gujarat High Court) [88 DTR 0175] v. CIT vs. Polestar Industries (Gujarat High Court) [221 taxman 0423] vi CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries Private Limited (Gauhati High Court) [262 ITR 0587] vii Komac Investments & Finance (P.) Ltd. V. ITO (2011) [142 TTJ 0308 (Mumbai] 6.2 Reading of these se…

Zodiac Jrd Mkj Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 836/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Drutika Jain, A.R. &For Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 234BSection 50Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Zodiac JRD MKJ ACIT, Circle 5(3)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhava, 910, Parekh Market, Mumbai – 400 020 39, JSS Road, Vs. Kennedy Bridge, Opera House, Mumbai- 400 004 Maharashtra PAN: AAACZ0459K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Drutika Jain, A.R. & Ms. Priyank Ghia, A.R. Revenue by : Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23 . 05 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31 . 05 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judici…

ACIT -893) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Triple Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43C

….) Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 711/ 23 Taxman 8 by laying down that "legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to that purpose and should not be extended beyond their legitimate field". In CIT v. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 210 /[2005] 144 Taxman 855 (Bom), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court considered the facts of a case in which the assessee was a partner in a firm which was dissolved in the year 1984 and the assessee was allotted a flat towards the credit in the capital asset with the firm. The assessee showed the flat as capital asset in its books of account and…

ACIT, Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Eurofinance Traininf & Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 835/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Pitta Samuel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 48Section 50Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.835/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(1)(2), Mumbai v/s M/s. Eurofinance Training & Publishing P. Ltd. …………….Respondent 506, Dalamal Tower, 211, Nariman Point Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AAACE3332Q Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri Revenue by : Shri Pitta Samuel Date of Hearing – 19/09/2022 Date of Order – 23/09/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the R…