How many judgments cite CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah (262 ITR 657), spanning 2016 to 2024.

CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah

262 ITR 657High Court2003#8926 most cited

What is CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah authority for?

The period of holding of an asset for the purpose of determining capital gains includes the period from the date of allotment or the buyer's agreement, not necessarily from the date of payment or registration.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah · capital gains · long term capital gain · indexation benefit · date of allotment · buyer's agreement · period of holding · date of registration

Judgments citing CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

…d SLP filed by Department [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC) 3) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi [2005] 279 ITR 552 (Guj) 4) Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657. 5) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of South India Minerals Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-XIV, Chennai (2019) 417 ITR 306 (Madras) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 8 of 9 6) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Ms. Madhu Kaul vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2014) 43 taxmann.com 417 (Punjab & Haryana) 7…

Shri Bindiganavale Ravi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2959/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathiba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(47)(v)Section 234DSection 53A

…h January, 2014 wherein one of us (AM) is a party and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by relying on various decisions of the Tribunal as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj). Relevant discussion is given in paras 3 & 4 of the said order of the Tribunal which read as under: 3. There are couple of issues raised in this appeal. Rest of the grounds raised in the appeal are either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, they are dismissed as general or consequential. The issues, which need to be adjudicated…

Govind Singh Grewal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3232/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Govind Singh Grewal, Vs Ito, 8-A, Panchsheel Marg, Ward-61(1), Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aghpg7795D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 54

…e should be given the benefit of indexation. Similar view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jitendra Mohan vs. ITO reported in 2006 (11) TMI 371, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657, CIT vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi, reported in 279 ITR 552 and various other decisions. He accordingly submitted that the order passed by the lower authorities being bad in the eye of law has to be set aside and the gain on the sale of flat should be treated as long-term capital gain by allowing indexation benefit from the date of allotment/date of…

L. Vivekananda, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1087/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R

Nilam R. Kataria, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, (OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad

ITA 3427/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 48Section 54F

…from the “date of allotment” and not the “date of possession”. He also relied upon the judgment passed by the Mumbai Tribunal in the matter of Anita D. Kanjani-vs-ACIT in ITA No. 2291/Mum/2015 as also in the matter of CIT-vs-Anilaben Upendra Shah reported in 262 ITR 657 (Guj) passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, copies whereof were also submitted before us. He thus prays for Nilam R Kataria vs. ACIT(OSD) Assessment Year 2011-12 deletion of addition made by the authorities below. On the other hand, the Learned Representative of the Department relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. We have…

Triple Ess Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-27, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR and Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…nal in the case of Anita D. Kanjani v. ACIT (2017) 163 ITD 451 g. Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy (2018) 96 taxmann.com 648 h. Jindas Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR 552 (Gujarat) i. CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj) j. Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Mrs. Sheela Chopra in ITA No. 169/Kol/2014 7. He submitted that all the aforesaid judgments clearly laid down the ratio that if Assessee gets the right to hold the flat on issuance of an allotment letter and merely on the fact that possession was delivered letter it cannot be held that pr…

Mohammad Sohail Bhamala, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3563/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Shri Mohammed Sohail Bhamla Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 53,54, 1St Floor Income Tax – 17(2), Ashoka Shopping Centre Mumbai L.T. Marg, G.T. Hospital Compound, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aaapb9490K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 8

…h January, 2014 wherein one of us (AM) is a party and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by relying on various decisions of the Tribunal as well as the judgment of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj). Relevant discussion is given in paras 3 & 4 of the said order of the Tribunal which read as under: “ 3. There are couple of issues raised in this appeal. Rest of the grounds raised in the appeal are either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, they are dismissed as general or consequential. The issues, which need to be adjudicat…

Shri. Rajesh Atalram Rupani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3111/MUM/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Atalram Rupani Dcit Circle -23(3) 6Th Floor, Makhija Chamber, Vs. Matru Mandir, 196 Turnover Road, Bandra Grant Road, (W), Mumbai400007 Mumbai-400050 Pan No. Afapr9279R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S. M. Makhija, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S. M. Makhija, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…j Laxmi Developers dated 18.10. 2011. Also reliance is place by him on the decision in CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd.122 ITR 594 (Bom.), CIT vs. Vijay flexible Containers 186 ITR 693 (Bom.), Madhu Kanl vs. CIT 225 Taxman 086 (P & H), CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah 262 ITR 657 (Guj.), Jitendra Mohan vs. ITO (11 SOT 594),Shri Khemchand Fagwani vs ITO, Wd 4(1)(3, Mumbai (ITAT- ‘A’ Bench Mumbai in ITA No. 7876/Mum/2010 dated 10.09.2014), ACIT vs. Smt. Vandana Rana Ray (ITAT- Bench ‘F’ Mumbai in ITAT No. 6173/Mum/2011 dated 07.11.2012), Smt. Meena A. Hemnani, Mumbai vs. ITO (I.T.), Mumbai (ITA No. 5998/Mum/2010 dated 09.01…

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

…C) 4. CIT v. A Suresh Rao (2014) 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar HC) 5. Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT (2012) 344 ITR 501 (P&H_HC) 6. CIT v. Jitendra Mohan (2007) 165 Taxman 524 (Del HC) 7. CIT v. Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR52 (Guj HC) 8. CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj) 18 Liladhar R. Tandel ITA No.959/Mum./2014 C.O No.153/Mum/2017 9. Lahar Singh Siroya v. ACIT (2016) 138 DTR 331 (Kar-HC) 10. Vijay Harnilapurkar v. DCIT ITA No.6048/M/2013 11. ACIT v. Vandana Rana Roy ITA No.6173/M12011 12. Meena Hernnani vs ITO ITA No.5998/M/2010 13. Sneha Bimal Parekh v. CIT ITA No.5489/M/2015 14. Surnatichand Tolamal Go…

Nandita Patodia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 5982/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Smt. Nandita Patodia Income Tax Officer Ward 72, Mount Unique, 16(1)(1) Vs. 62A, Peddar Road, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Mumbai – 400 026 Mumbai - 400007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp0811D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54

…h January, 2014 wherein one of us (AM) is a party and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by relying on various decisions of the Tribunal as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj). Relevant discussion is given in paras 3 & 4 of the said order of the Tribunal which read as under: “ 3. There are couple of issues raised in this appeal. Rest of the grounds raised in the appeal are either consequential or general in nature. Accordingly, they are dismissed as general or consequential. The issues, which need to be adjudicat…

Vijay Manikrao Hamilapurkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6048/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amerjit Singh Shri Vijay Manikrao Hamilapurkar D C I T – 21(3) 1801/A. Somerset Chs Ltd. Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Opp. D-Mart, Hiranandani Garden Bandra, Mumbai 400050 Mumbai 400076 Pan – Aabph3831K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…l issue came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal wherein the Coordinate Bench decided the issue on identical facts in favour of the assessee following the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anilaben U. Shah 262 ITR 657 (Guj) and of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Meera A. Hennani in ITA No. 59989/Mum/2010. In its order in the case of Richa Bagrodia (supra), the Coordinate Bench held as under at paras 6 to 8 thereof: - “6. We heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble High…

Anupama Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 472/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri R.S. GoradiaFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 234ASection 54

…e date of allotment should be relevant for reckoning the holding period of the asset sold. He also submitted that the said decision of the Tribunal was based on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj.). Further, he also brought our attention to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surendra Mohan Khanna vs. ITO in ITA No.6505/M/2012 (AY 2007-2008), dated 19.8.2016. He relied on the contents of para 2.1 of the said Tribunal‟s order (supra) for the identical proposition that the date of booking should be relevant. Further, he als…