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.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. the Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

ITAT/174/2021HC Calcutta12 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : 12Th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd July, 2020, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, `D Virtual Court’, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1486/Kol/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :- A. Whether The Learned Tribunal Has Committed Substantial Error In Law In Confirming The Decision Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In Allowing Long Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,09,80,30,873/- On Transfer Of Government Securities After Applying Cost Inflation Index On Sale Of Government Securities & Holding He Government Securities Are Not Bond & Debentures For The Purpose Of 3Rd Proviso To Section 48 Of The Act (4Th Proviso After Amendment) Which Is Petently Wrong & Latently Irregular ?

Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 48Section 50

…OD–21 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/174/2021 IA No.GA/2/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 12th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….for appellant Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv. …for respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the ord…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Solapur vs. Shri. Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Solapur

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 1751/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 50

…’s stand that he had not claimed any depreciation on the school building or any other asset transferred in the relevant previous year, if any. 5. Faced with the situation, we quote honorable jurisdictional high court’s decision in CIT vs. Ace Builders [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) holds that section 50 is a deeming fiction applicable in the specified circumstances only. We further refer to stricter interpretation in light of Commissioner Vs. Dilipkumar and Company [2018] 9 SCC page 1 (SC)(FB) as well as CIT vs VEEPE Enterprises [2010] 325 ITR 414 (Kerala) that transfer of assets forming part of a block of assets spec…

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Transport and Travels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5683/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman: A.Y : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Reliance Transport & Tax – 4(3)(1), Travels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Appellant) 6Th Floor, Nagin Mahal, 82, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Pan : Aaacr2380M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh YadavFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar
Section 143(3)

…y restricted to the mode of computation under Section 48 and 49 of the Act which cannot be extended beyond that. 19. This issue had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (jurisdictional High Court) in the case of CIT vs Ace Builders, 281 ITR 210 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court in the context of claim of deduction under Section 54E of the Act in respect of capital gain arising on transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed, which is deemed to be Short term capital gains under Section 50 of the Act, had made the following observation:- “21. On perusal of the a…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata 4 vs. Eveready Industries India Limited

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/233/2018) is dismissed and the

ITAT/233/2018HC Calcutta30 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th November, 2021 Appearance :-

Section 2Section 260ASection 43BSection 50

…ction 54E of the Act. The High Court has confirmed the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. While doing so the High Court has relied upon its own judgment in the case of CIT v. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 210/[2005] 144 Taxman 855 (Bom.). The High Court has observed that Section 50 of the Act which is a special provision for computing the capital gains in the case of depreciable assets is not only restricted for the purposes of Section 48 or Section 49 of the Act as specifically stated therein and the said fiction created in sub-section (1) & (2) of S…

The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

…hat the said flat was acquired in the year 1989 and was therefore a Long Term Capital Asset by virtue of section 2(29A) of the Act. In support, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay Hlgh Court in the case of CIT vs Ace Builders reported in 281 ITR 210 (copy enclosed at page 5-12) where it was held that- Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was nothing in section 50 to suggest that the fiction created in section 50 is not only applicable to sections 48 and 49 but also applies to other provisions. On the contrary, this section makes it explicitly clear that the deeming fiction created in sub…

The DCIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Midvalley Healthcare Services Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R
Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

…igeration Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 155 ITR 711 held that the provisions (deeming) or fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which these were enacted. 10.8 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Builders (P) Ltd. reported in 281 ITR 210 has also taken the same view. On perusal of the above judgments, it emerges that the deeming provisions should be literally followed in the manner expressed therein. 10.9 In the backdrop of the above stated discussion, it is the duty of the AO to prove that the assessee with respect to its eligible business has arranged its transaction with the…

Apollo Finvest (Inndia) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 9 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7489/MUM/2018[2005-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2005-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Mr. S.L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 70

…round no.1 and 2 of this appeal, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that these issues stand covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Ace Builders P. Ltd. (Bom) 281 ITR 210 and many other decisions of this Tribunal such as (1) Geetanjali Trading Ltd vs. ITO vide ITA No.5428/M/2007, dated 24.12.2002 (2) Manali Investments vs. ACIT, 45 SOT 128 (Mum) (URO) etc. Some of these 4 M/s Apollo Finvest decisions were not available to the AO / CIT (A) at the appropriate point of time. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1486/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 14ASection 194CSection 194LSection 2Section 37(1)Section 40Section 48Section 50

…oss; which are computed u/s 50 of the Act are not eligible for set off against long term capital gains brought forward. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant stand. Hon'ble Bombay high court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ace Builders (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Bom); as upheld in hon'ble apex court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. V.S.Dempo Company Ltd. (Civil Appeal No(s) 4797/2008) dated ITA No.1486/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 DCIT Cir-3(1)(3), Kol. Vs. M/s The Peerless General Finance & Investment & Co.. Ltd. Page 8 05.09.2016 holds that the impugned deeming fiction treating long term capital…

Sunil Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5829/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblesunil Miglani Vs Dcit Kj-2, Kavi Nagar Central Circle New Delhi Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)Section 54F(1)(b)

…] 66 ITR 622 (SC) xi. CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2008) 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC) 5 xii. ITO vs. Manjit Singh [2010] 128 TTJ 82 (Chandigarh) (UO) xiii. CIT, Panji vs. V. S. Dempo Company Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC) xiv. CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 281 ITR 210 (Bom. HC) xv. CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau. HC) Besides this, the Ld. AR also submitted that in case of assessee’s wife, the issue has been decided in favour of the wife by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2235/Del/2016 order dated 18.11.2019 (Anit Miglani vs. ITO). Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the issue is squar…

Anita Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5828/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Vanshika Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)Section 54F(1)(b)

…967] 66 ITR 622 (SC) xi. CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2008) 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC) xii. ITO vs. Manjit Singh [2010] 128 TTJ 82 (Chandigarh) (UO) xiii. CIT, Panji vs. V. S. Dempo Company Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC) xiv. CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 281 ITR 210 (Bom. HC) xv. CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau. HC) 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer is not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case as judgment states that Section 50C will be applicable to determine sale consideration for the purpose of computation of ca…

Smt. Anita Miglani, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2235/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(a)

…967] 66 ITR 622 (SC) xi. CIT vs. Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2008) 309 ITR 233 (Delhi HC) xii. ITO vs. Manjit Singh [2010] 128 TTJ 82 (Chandigarh) (UO) xiii. CIT, Panji vs. V. S. Dempo Company Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC) xiv. CIT vs. ACE Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 281 ITR 210 (Bom. HC) xv. CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau. HC) 6 I.T.A No. 2235/Del/2016 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer is not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case as judgment states that Section 50C will be applicable to determine sale consideration for the…

Unique Properties & Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner - Central Circle 38, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Unique Properties & Securities Private Assistant Commissioner-Central Circle Limited, 4Th Floor, Malhotra House, Opp. Vs. 38, [Now Dcit Central Circle 6(3)], 19Th Gpo, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacu0702G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha - ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari - DR
Section 143(3)Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Unique Properties & Securities Private Assistant Commissioner-Central Circle Limited, 4th floor, Malhotra House, Opp. Vs. 38, [Now DCIT Central Circle 6(3)], 19th GPO, Fort, Mumbai-400001. floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AAACU0702G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prayag Jha - AR Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari - DR Date of Hearing : 14/08/2019 Date of pronouncement : 08/11/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN,…

K.K.Aluofil, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3825/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3825/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) M/S K.K. Alufoil The Asst. Commissioner Of B-B02, Shree Shashwat Co- Income Tax, Circle 17(2), Op. Hsg Society Sejal Park, Mumbai Vs. Sant Mirabai Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Shartanpada No. 2, Dahisar Road, Mumbai-400020, (E), Mumbai-400 068 Maharashtra (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) .. स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aadfe2157R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 74

…281 ITR 210) even though the said decision was rendered in the context of eligibility of deduction under Section 54E." 7. We noted that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ace Builders (P.) Limited (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Bom.), wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered the issue in regard to sale consideration arising out of 5 | P a g e depreciation asset to be treated as short term capital gain and not business income. Hence, we delete the addition and allow the appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronou…

Bulls & Bears Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1598/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Bulls & Bears Finance Ltd., Vs. Office No.B-2, Marine Chambers, Ito, Range –3(1)(2), 43, New Marine Lines, Mumbai Opp: Sndt College, Churchgate, Mumbai [Pan : Aaacb5047K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 50Section 50C

…& Transducers Ltd., [176 ITD 104 / 104 taxmann.com 129 (Mumbai-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has considered the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Manali Investments [39 taxmann.com 4/219 Taxman 113 (Mag.)]; (ii) CIT Vs. ACE Builders (P) Ltd., [144 Taxman 855 / 281 ITR 210 (Bom)]; (iii) Raj Shree Roadlines (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO [IT Appeal No.1627 (Mum) 2012, dt.20-03-2013] and held as under: “8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and of the case. We find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the given facts has considered this issue in the case of Manali Investments (supra), wherein, the questio…

Mardia Extrusion Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2950/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shyam C. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 50Section 74Section 80

…y for the purposes of Section 50 of the Act but the benefit of set off of long term capital loss under section 74 of the Act is to be allowed. Hon'ble High Court has also followed its decision in the case of CIT v. Ace Builders (P.) Ltd. [2005] 144 Taxman 855/281 ITR 210 (Bom). 6. As regards to set off of business loss against gain on sale of depreciable asset of factory building by the assessee, I find that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Raj Shree Roadlines (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [IT Appeal No.1627 (Mum.) 2012, dated 20-3-2013] has considered the issue of business loss of unabsorbed depreciation…

Kalva Umadevi, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhpatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.443/Viz/2018 (धििाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Smt.Kalva Uma Devi Income Tax Officer 15-2-17, Srinilayam Ward-1(4) Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aewpk3080J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.V.S.Murthy, Ar प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr

For Appellant: Shri C.V.S.Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 1Section 148Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

…of full value of consideration is concerned as deeming provision mentioned in S. 50C is for specific asset and for the purpose of s. 48. Hence the assessee is entitled for deduction under s. 54F. — CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (2005) 195 CTR (Born) 1. (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Born) and CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P) Ltd. (2003) 185 CTR (Gau) 71 (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau) applied. The assessee also relied on the decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench in I.T.A.No.11/JP/2016 dated 28.09.2017 in the case of ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer Vs. Raj Kumar Parashar, Ajmer, wherein, the coordinate Bench has taken a similar view on identi…

Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata

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

ITA 2440/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Nilanjana Chakraborti…………..………...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….....Appellant 99B, Kankulia Road Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Acupc 49992 P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-22, Kolkata.……......………………..........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 03/08/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14, On The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Erroneous Determination Of Long Term Capital Gain At Rs.72,50,000/- By Ld. Dcit On Erroneous Belief & Misconception Of Law By Denying The Benefit Claimed U/S 54F Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Appellant. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Adduce Or Alter Any Ground Or Grounds On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

…of full value of consideration is concerned as deeming provision mentioned in s. 50C is for specific asset and for the purpose of s. 48. Hence the assessee is entitled for deduction under s. 54F.— CIT v. Ace Builders (P.) Ltd. (2005) 195 CTR (Bom) 1 . (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and CIT v. Assam Petroleum Industries (P.) Ltd. (2003) 185 CTR (Gau) 71 : (2003) 262 ITR 587 (Gau)applied. (Paras 7.3 to 7.5)" 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also applying the ratio of the case laws discussed above, we are of the view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, if the net sal…

M/S. Vardhan Nutritions and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Raigad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 662/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Vardhan Nutritions & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.535/2, Ershimgathi Road, Old Thana Naka Road, Thana Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Dist. Raigad. …. Pan: Aabcv9194J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Panvel

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 72Section 72(1)

…erring to the decision in CIT Vs. Parrys (Eastern) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), had held as under:- “17. Even on merit we find the issue has to be decided in favour of the assessee. We find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 281 ITR 210 has held that there was nothing in section 50 to suggest that the fiction created in section 50 is not only restricted to sections 48 and 49 but also applies to other provisions. On the contrary this section makes it explicitly clear that the deeming fiction created in sub-section (1) and (2) is restricted only to the mode of computation of capit…

Dcitcc 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Hrishikesh D. Pai, Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2766/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 50Section 54FSection 69B

…invested in residential property. As appellant's asset is to be treated as short term capital asset, AO denied the exemption claim of the appellant u/s 54F. Even, AO was of the view that decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs ACE Builders P. Ltd.[281 ITR 210(Bom)] is not applicable as the above decision deals with exemption u/s 54E of the Act. In the submissions appellant states that properties which appellant had sold was held for more than 3 years which even AO has not disputed and the consideration received was Rs. 10.5 Crs. Consideration received from sale of commercial property is Rs.6.5 Crs. As…

S.P. Investrade (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepari, D.R
Section 154Section 32Section 50Section 54E

…mption allowable to the assessee under section 54EC of the Act in respect of depreciable assets which has held for a period of more than six months by the assessee as has been held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO vs. Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. 281 ITR 210 (Bom) and various other decisions by various judicial forums. Now the question before us whether the assessee is entitled a claim of Rs.40 lakhs which was not correctly claimed as the assessee has wrongly and inadvertently filled some columns which resulted into non granting/rejection of exemption under section 54EC of the Act. Thereafter, the as…