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 - 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Automobile Products of India Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6197/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit-15(1)(1), M/S Automobile Products Of Room No.470, 4Th Floor, India Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 63-A, North Phase, Sidco Vs. M.K. Road, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Mumbai-400020 Chennai-600098 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aabca0725C

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45Section 50CSection 6

….) 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…

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…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 (Born.). 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 (l) & (2) of S…

Shuklendu A Baji, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range- 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5209/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5209/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shuklendu A. Baji Dy. Cit, Range – 24(2), C-13, Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 901, Whispering Heights, बनाम/ Mind Space, Chindholi Bunder Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepb 3851 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal & Shri Jitendra Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 13.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 06.06.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 28(1)(va)Section 54E

…ns'. In support of his contention he has relied on the relevant clause of the agreement to transfer placed at page 7 of the paper book. He has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 210 (Bom.) and contended that the amount in question being chargeable to tax as a 'capital gain', exemption u/s 54EC of the Act is allowable to the assessee. 7. Considering the above the ITAT vide order dated 16.12.2010 remanded the matter to the assessing officer by holding as under: We find that since the contentions raised by the learned counsel…

Parvinchand N. Sehgal (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2305/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 54Section 54F

…s 54F in respect of short term capital gain against the sale of factory premises in Kamala Bhavan Industrial Premises Co-op. Society Ltd., Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ACE Builders P. Ltd. 281 ITR 210 and decision of Guwahati High Court in the case of Assam Petroleum Industries P. Ltd. 262 ITR 587. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.18,85,178/-. The return was proc…

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 153/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…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 (Born.). 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 (l) & (2) of S…

Eih Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 110/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 153/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eih Limited [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 110/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Eih Limited -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Kanchun Kaushal,Ar For The Department : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal,ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…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 (Born.). 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 (l) & (2) of S…

ACIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Extraction Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5758/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sktijit Dey() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…g to the appellant 50C is deeming section as deeming provision is fiction of law. This cannot be extended beyond the object for which it is enacted. In view of the Supreme Court case in Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar 603 CIT Vs. K.S. Builders 281 ITR 210 (Bom). Here as section 50C is a deeming section. According to the above decisions of the Supreme Court this 50C valuation differential cannot be extended beyond the computation of Long Term Capital Gain and it cannot be extended to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Further, same view also upheld for Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Fortune Hotels & Estate…

ITO 29(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Devyani R Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3576/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 50Section 54ESection 54F

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.3576/Mum/2015 (Assessment year 2011-12) ITO-29(1)(3), Mumbai vs Shri Devyani R Doshi Prop of M/s Dreamworks) C/s. Jhulelal Marg, Jai Bharat School Mulund (W), Mumbai 400 082 PAN : AERPD7039M APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Ram Tiwari Respondent by Shri Bhadresh K Doshi Date of hearing 24-10-2017 Date of pronouncement 27-10-2017 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-40, Mum…

ITO 22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Liladhar R. Tandel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross

ITA 959/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicil Member

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…dustries P. Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) 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 vs. Ace Builders P. Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Born), 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 depreciation was claim…

Abhideep Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 797/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Abhideep Chemicals Vs. Pr Cit – 14, Mumbai – 400 Pvt. Ltd., 503, Keshava Bkc 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5336N Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 54

…per learned AR, the issue with regard to applicability of section 54 EC to capital gain computed under section 50 in respect of long term capital assets is concluded by the Bombay High Court decision dated 7th March, 2005 in the case of ACE Builders Pvt. Ltd. 281 ITR 210 holding that benefit under section 54 EC can be claimed in respect of capital gain computed under section 50 where the assets are long term. The said decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. V. S. Dempo Co. Ltd. 387 ITR 354. He further contended that the issue 5 M/s. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., with regard to app…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. G Shoes Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6209/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) G. Shoes Exports Asst. Cit-25(1)/Cit City 25 बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, 1, Hitex Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Dahisar (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfg 5376 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6209/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Asst. Cit-25(1), G. Shoes Exports Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 068 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Radheshyam Jain : Shri Airiju Jaikaran Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 16.7.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 20.3.2013. 2

For Appellant: Shri Radheshyam Jain
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) G. Shoes Exports Asst. CIT-25(1)/CIT City 25 बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, 1, Hitex Industrial Estate, S. V. Road, Dahisar (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACFG 5376 P (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6209/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Asst. CIT-25(1), G. Shoes Exports Mumbai-…

M/S. A.T. Kearney India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 511/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

…frigeration Industries P. Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) considered the ambit of deeming provisions and held that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which these were enacted. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Ace Builders P. Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Bom.) has also taken similar view. On an appraisal of the above judgments, the position which emerges is that whenever a legal fiction is created by way of a deeming provision, it is vital to go strictly by the express prescription of this provision. Such a deeming provision cannot be extended beyond what is expressly stated therein. If certain…

M/S. A.T. Kearney India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 510/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

…frigeration Industries P. Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) considered the ambit of deeming provisions and held that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which these were enacted. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Ace Builders P. Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Bom.) has also taken similar view. On an appraisal of the above judgments, the position which emerges is that whenever a legal fiction is created by way of a deeming provision, it is vital to go strictly by the express prescription of this provision. Such a deeming provision cannot be extended beyond what is expressly stated therein. If certain…

ACIT 22(3), Mumbai vs. Shree Ram Engineering Works, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 499/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Shree Ram Engineering Tax-22 (3), Room No.322, Piramal Works, E/A-6 Nav Monica Chambers, 3Rd Floor, Parel, Mumbai -12 Chs, Vidyanagari Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai- 400 098 Pan: Aacfs 3220J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By .. Smt. Puja Swaroop, Dr Respondent By .. Shri Anil Sathe, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 01-09-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 01-09- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 50Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM The Asst. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Shree Ram Engineering Tax-22 (3), Room No.322, Piramal Works, E/A-6 Nav Monica Chambers, 3rd floor, Parel, Mumbai -12 CHS, Vidyanagari Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai- 400 098 PAN: AACFS 3220J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by .. Smt. Puja Swaroop, DR Respondent by .. Shri Anil Sathe, AR Date of hearing .. 01-09-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 01-09- 2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of t he order of the CIT (A…

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(3)4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7092/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Milin Thakore
Section 112(1)(b)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50Section 50C

…he purpose of applicability of tax rate it has to be treated as Long term capital gain if held for more than 3 years. While coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal considered the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ace Builders (P). Ltd., (281 ITR 410) and also the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Manali Investments Vs ACIT (139 TTJ 411). Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submits that the legal contention raised by the assessee has been accepted in one of the decision of the Tribunal holding that for tax purposes the property which was held for more than 3 years…

Skf Inida Ltd( Since May 19 2004 Name Has Been Changed From Skf Bearing India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Milin Thakore
Section 112(1)(b)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50Section 50C

…he purpose of applicability of tax rate it has to be treated as Long term capital gain if held for more than 3 years. While coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal considered the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ace Builders (P). Ltd., (281 ITR 410) and also the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Manali Investments Vs ACIT (139 TTJ 411). Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submits that the legal contention raised by the assessee has been accepted in one of the decision of the Tribunal holding that for tax purposes the property which was held for more than 3 years…

ITO 24(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Engineering Equipments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 65/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.65/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Income Tax Officer 24(1)(5), बनाम/ M/S Engineering Equipment, -31, Shree Laxmi Industrial Room No.523, Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (W), Parel, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400012. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaafe2008C

For Appellant: Shri H M Wanare
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 50Section 50ESection 54E

…allow deduction u/s 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereby directing the AO to allow deduction in respect of short capital gain arising on sale of depreciable assessee by the ld. CIT(A) by wrongly relying on the decision in the case of ITO V/s ACE Builders (281 ITR 210) without appreciating the facts in the present case, the facts are different and distinguishable than the case law cited above. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income on 28.7.2012 declaring total income of Rs.22,45,585/-. The return was processed at Centralized Processing Centre vide order u/s…

Mohd Raza Akberali Ghugharia, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8111/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

Section 143(2)Section 45Section 48Section 50Section 50CSection 54

…8 no application, section 50C cannot be applied. To support his contentions, he relied on various judicial pronouncements which are listed below: 8 Mohd Raza Adberali 1. Sanjeev Lal, Smt. Shail Moti Lal v. CIT 365 ITR 389 (SC) 2. CIT v. ACE Builders P. Ltd. 281 ITR 210 (Bom) 3. Mrs. Nila v. Shah v. CIT 152 TTJ (Mumbai) (UO) 38 4. ITO v. Mr. Kondal Reddy Mandal Reddy (ITA No.848/Hyd/2015) (ITAT Hyderabad) 5. Shri Nand Lal Sharma v. ITO 413/JP/2012(ITAT Jaipur) 6. ITO v. Shri Mehul J. Dhabalia (ITA No.2235/Mum/2012)(ITAT Mumbai) 2.5. On the other hand, Ld. DR stated that section 50C has been introduced to uneart…

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and appeals filed by the AO

ITA 8523/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Malathi Sridharan
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे",लेखा सद" एवं अिमत शु" "ाियक सद" BeforeS/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8523/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 DCIT-3(2), M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 6th Floor, Room No.608 36-38A, Nariman Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 227, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. PAN: AAACK 4409 J आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3114/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT-3(2), Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3506/Mum/…

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-3, Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and appeals filed by the AO

ITA 3114/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Malathi Sridharan
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ए” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे",लेखा सद" एवं अिमत शु" "ाियक सद" BeforeS/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8523/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04 DCIT-3(2), M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 6th Floor, Room No.608 36-38A, Nariman Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 227, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 021. PAN: AAACK 4409 J आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3114/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT-3(2), Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3506/Mum/…