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.

Travotel (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1551/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J P Boaz & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 50Section 54E

…ion 54EC on account of capital gain arising from transfer of the hotel building, which was a depreciable asset, is allowable in law in view of the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ace Builders (Pvt.) Ltd, reported in [2006] 281 ITR 210 and, therefore, exemption under section 54EC cannot be denied to the assessee as the fiction created in section 50 cannot be extended to section 54EC as held by the Hon’ble High Court. Further, reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of German Remedies Ltd vs DCIT, reported in [2006] 285 ITR 86, wherein,…

DCIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Vijay Bhagwandas Raheja, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed

ITA 2768/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2768/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vijay Bhagavandas Raheja Tax-Central Circle -29, Raheja Chambers, Vs. Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Avenue, M K Road, Santacruze (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400054 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…d it appears that the assessee was under bona fide belief that it was a long term asset as he was owning the property over a period of three years. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High 3 Court in the case of ACE Builders Pvt Ltd (281 ITR 210) to hold that the provisions of sec. 50 shall not convert a long term capital asset into a short term capital asset. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed this appeal before us. 4. The ld D.R placed heavy reliance on the order of the AO and submitted that the assessee is belonging to a Raheja Group, which is being assisted by the professionals. He fu…

ITO 20(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Innovative Metal Arts, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1522/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito- 20(1)(3), M/S Innovative Metal Arts, R. No. 607, Piramal Chambers, 22, Aghadi Industrial Estate, Lal Baug, Mumbai-400012 Marol Maroshi Road, Marol Village, Vs. Mumbai-400059. Pan: Aaafi2232E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.P.KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Premanand J. (DR)
Section 154Section 54Section 54E

…ecting the AO to allow deduction u/s 54 EC against the Short Term Capital Gain arised on sale of depreciable asset. II. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in relying on the decision of ITO v ACE Builders reported in 281 ITR 210 without appreciating that the facts in the instant case are different. In the instant case the assessee has erroneously claimed deduction u/s 54EC against the Short Term Capital Gain arised on sale of depreciable asset and the same was rightly shown in the Return of Income e-filed originally. III. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(App…

ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Legal Heirs of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 698/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sunil T. Vankawala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 50Section 54E

…d raised by the Revenue is reproduced below:– “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred on the 54EC of the I.T. Act, 1961, on short term capital gain u/s 50 of the Act on depreciable assets of shops following the decision in the case of CIT v/s Ace Builder Pvt. Ltd., 281 ITR 210, as facts of the case is different.” 2. The solitary issue involved in this appeal filed is with regard to claim of the assessee made under section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) which was rejected by the Assessing Officer but was allowed by the learned CIT(A). 2 ITA No.698/Mum./2014 (A.Y. 2009–10) ITO vs. Legal Heir of S…

Greaves Cotton Ltd (Formerly Known As Greaves Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7356/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

For Respondent: Shri N K Chand
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80H

…ions. Accordingly, assessee contended that the capital of Rs. 4,19,85,805/- should be treated as long- term-capital-gain and not short term. In support, the assessee had relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of [CIT v Ace Builders (P.) Ltd 281 ITR 210] and CIT v Legal Heir of Later Mrs. S R Pandit (ITA No. 775/2005 dated 30.08.2005). However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention and affirmed the order of the AO. 40. Before us, the Ld. Counsel strongly relied upon, the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Smita Conductors Ltd. vs ACIT reported in [2015] 152 ITD 417 wherein…

Dayal Tahilram Parwani, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3545/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-19(3), Dayal Tahilram Parwani बनाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Floor, Brijbala Building, 21St Road, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpp 6013 C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3545/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Dayal Tahilram Parwani Dy. Cit-19(3), Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 Vs. ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Jasbir S. Chauhanlove Kumar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26-2-2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 26-12-2011. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. ChauhanLove Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 50Section 50CSection 54E

…ific rates in the value guidelines. We, accordingly, confirm the applicability of section 54EC on the capital gain arising on the building (super-structure), being only a LTCA u/s. 2(29A). In fact, the Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs. Ace Builders P. Ltd. [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) has held that section 54EC benefit shall be available even on depreciated assets, i.e., on the short- term capital gain computed u/s. 50 of the Act, where the asset under reference otherwise satisfies the test of being a long-term capital asset. The said decision, relied upon by the ld. CIT(A), is noted only by way of abundant caution in-as…

DCIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Dayal Tahilram Parwanian Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3194/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3194/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-19(3), Dayal Tahilram Parwani बनाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, 4Th Floor, Brijbala Building, 21St Road, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpp 6013 C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3545/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Dayal Tahilram Parwani Dy. Cit-19(3), Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 Vs. ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Jasbir S. Chauhanlove Kumar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are The Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26-2-2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 26-12-2011. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. ChauhanLove Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 50Section 50CSection 54E

…ific rates in the value guidelines. We, accordingly, confirm the applicability of section 54EC on the capital gain arising on the building (super-structure), being only a LTCA u/s. 2(29A). In fact, the Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs. Ace Builders P. Ltd. [2005] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) has held that section 54EC benefit shall be available even on depreciated assets, i.e., on the short- term capital gain computed u/s. 50 of the Act, where the asset under reference otherwise satisfies the test of being a long-term capital asset. The said decision, relied upon by the ld. CIT(A), is noted only by way of abundant caution in-as…

CIT vs. Rajiv Shukla

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 620 / 2011HC Delhi08 Apr 2011
Section 50Section 54F

…. 3. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition and order of the CIT(A) is confirmed by ITAT. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we find that it has relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. ACE Builders Pvt. Ltd. 281 ITR 210. This decision of the Bombay High Court was followed by the same Court in CIT v. M/s Delite Tin Industries in ITA 1118/2008 dated 26th September, 2008. Against the order passed in Delite (supra) proceedings, Revenue had preferred Special Leave Petition which has also been dismissed by Supreme Court 21st August, 2009. . 4. We have…