How many judgments cite CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini?

228 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 48, Section 2(47), Section 2(47)(v).

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

398 ITR 531Supreme Court of India2017#391 most cited

What is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini authority for?

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

228

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Balbir Singh Maini · section 2(47)(v) · section 53A Transfer of Property Act · unregistered development agreement · joint development agreement · capital gains · transfer of immovable property · date of transfer · registration requirement · part performance

Also reported as

86 Taxmann.com 94251 Taxmann 20212 SCC 354

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 48 Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A Section 45

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53a section 53 section 2(47)jda joint development agreement section 49 right to receive project completion method transfer of capital asset section 45 date of transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Emporis Properties Pvt Ltd

ITAT/59/2023HC Calcutta30 Mar 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 30Th March, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ...For The Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. S. Gupta, Adv. ...For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd September, 2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(4)Section 260ASection 263Section 43C

…and the value of the construction shall be certified by the structural engineer and architects. Thereafter the Tribunal took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Balbir Singh Maini reported in [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC). The said decision is more or less identical to the facts of the case on hand wherein one of the questions which fell for consideration was whether the transaction under the Joint Development Agreement should be envisaged as transfer exigible to tax by reference under Section 4(47)(v) of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of…

Vishal Aggarwal, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

ITA 803/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 803/Del/2022, A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 17Section 2(47)(v)Section 263Section 53A

…condition precedent to give effect to the provision of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Reliance is placed on the principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v, Balbir Singh WSaini /2Q17 86 taxmann.com 94 /251 Taxman 202/ 398 ITR 531 SC) wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the case of immovable property, after the year 2001, the delivery of possession of the immovable property in terms of an agreement cannot be treated as a transfer in terms of section 2/47)(v) of the IT Act, unless the very agreement is registered with the Registration authorities because from th…

Pulikkaparambil George Jacob, Kozhikode vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 558/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 53A

…that no cognizance thereto in law could be given in view of the amendments to the Registration Act, 1908 and the TP Act vide Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendments) Act, 2001, as clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC). In view of the ld. CIT(A), that however would not be of any consequence as sec. 2 | P a g e Pulikkaparambil George Jacob v. ITO 2(47)(vi) would instead apply. The assessee’s plea before him that the transaction did not materialise as the Builder-developer could not complete the building even by 2017, was met by him by stating that the proje…

Virender Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1787/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 131

…roperty by the amount of Rs.3.74 crores on sale of the said properly at the time of computation of capital gains as may be arising on account of sale of the said property." 10. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531, have held that where for want of permissions, entire transaction of development of land envisages in joint development agreement fell through, there asset which could be brought to tax u/s 45 read with section 48. The relevant observations made by the lordship in this regard reads as under: - " 20 This being the case, and it being clear that the…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Datla Shanti, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 33/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.33/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Smt. Datla Shanti, Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AJFPD 6650 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri I. Kama Sastry, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue by :…

Global Consultants & Designers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 11(4), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1424/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1424/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…hat the relevant law cited to the Tax Authorities has not been considered and he relied following case laws :- Re: No Accrual of income if there is uncertainty in collection thereof 1. CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 (SC) 2. CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini:398 ITR 531(SC) 3. CIT v. Motor Credit Co. (P) Ltd. 127 ITR 572 (Mad.) [SLP filed by the revenue has been dismissed vide SLP (Civil) No. 2806 of 1981 (149 ITR (St. 93)] 4. CIT v. Ferozepur Finance (P) Ltd. 124 ITR 619 (P&H) [SLP filed by the revenue has been dismissed vide SLP (Civil) No. 8158 of 1981 [144 ITR (St.) 50]. Re: Interest on ICDs which had had be…

Akshay Janak Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department NFAC, Delhi

ITA 267/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…s have been made in the hands of the other co-owner. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has misconstrued the provisions of Section 53A of the Act and misplaced reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Mainni: 398 ITR 531 (SC) which related to the joint development agreement. 9. On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). There is no dispute regarding the date of registration of documents for purchase and sale of Capital Asset. Thus, the Capital Asset transferred by the Appellant was…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(2), Pune vs. Subhash Krishnarao Saptarshi, Pune

ITA 125/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 50C

…en transferred their respective residential units in all the intervening assessment years. Be that as it may, we conclude in light of hon’ble CO No.47/PUN/2022 Subhash Krishnarao Saptarshi apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs. Balbir singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 537 (SC) that the assessee had very well transferred the land to the developer way back in the year 2004-05 than that in issue A.Y. 2011- 12 before us & more so, because the sale consideration of Rs.2.10 crore(s) has remained the same in both the development agreement as well as sale deed and therefore, the learned lower authorities have erred in…

ACIT Central-2 Indore, Indore vs. Shri .Gaurav Tekriwal, Indore

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

…reement. The similar view was held by the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Anil Bishnoi us ACIT (2017) 167 ITD O381 (Chd). 7.3.4 I find that, in the instant case, ratio laid down by the Hon'bie Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC) is not applicable as the facts of the case of the appellant are quite distinguishable from the above case of Balbir Singh Maini. In the case of Balbir Maini supra, the question before the Hon'ble Apex Court was that whether the transfer of rights in a property under a Joint Development Agreement in which was not got registered could be said…

Indrani Prasad, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 400/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Indrani Prasad Vs. A.C.I.T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aanpi5216K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/11/2022 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having The Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) For The A.Y 2013-14 On 29- 11-2013, Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,51,75,720/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted In The Case Of M/S Goldstone Infratech Ltd & Its Other Associated Companies On 09.11.2017. The Assessee Was One Of The Persons Whose Residential Premises Were Covered U/S 132 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 153A Of Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45Section 50C

…ITA 400 of 2022 Indrani Prasad आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Indrani Prasad Vs. A.C.I.T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) PAN:AANPI5216K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR Date of hearing: 17/11/2022 Date of pronouncement: 18/11/2022 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.07.2022 of the le…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…9/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 18 of 96 b) In order to qualify a transaction as transfer even in terms of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, the agreement should be a registered document (CIT vs Balbir Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 (SC) c) The land under consideration was never held as stock in trade by the Respondent. d) The Respondent is into Real Estate Business with respect to other following projects: Project Address Nature of project MSR Green City Koolipura Plot development Project Syadamipalya,Krishnajapur by self Nelamangala Phase I Village of Nelamangala Police…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

ACIT 28 (2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Developers, Navi Mumbai

ITA 30/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)

…ly argued that in the context of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the date of acquisition of the said land is to be reckoned from the date of Sale Deed which in the instant case was on 31.12.2007. The SC judgment in the case of Balbir Singh [2018] 12 SCC 354 was also referred to. The Ld. DR also pointed out that the said MOU was cancellable as per 4 of the said MOU upon which the amount paid by the Assessee was refundable to the Assessee. Hence, as per the ld. DR, the said MOU was not a concluded contract. 21. In her counter, the ld. AR countered each of these cases giving reference to the facts of th…

Smt.K.Shashikala vs. The Assistant Commissioner

In the result, I pass the following:

WP/22748/2021HC Karnataka20 Oct 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.22748/2021 (T - It)

Section 2(47)(v)Section 53

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22748/2021 (T - IT) BETWEEN: SMT.K.SHASHIKALA, W/O LATE MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.97, BILESHIVALE VILLAGE, DODDAGUBBI POST, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 077. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 32/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(47)(v)Section 49Section 53ASection 54F

…tered then, the said transfer would be invalid and have no value in the eyes of law. In support of his aforesaid conviction the A.O had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC). 4. Also, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee while computing the capital gain on the transfer of the aforesaid property had claimed deduction of indexed cost of improvement of Rs.31,62,386/-. It was observed by the A.O that the assesee had over the years claimed to have incurred expenses towards improvement of the property in that…

Emporis Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

ITA 299/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Emporis Properties Pvt. Ltd..................................…..............................……Appellant 5Th Floor, 16A, Brabourne Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aadce0793Q] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-2...................….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Mita Rizvi, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :September 08, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :September 22, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26.03.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 43C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं डॉ"टर मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.299/Kol/2022 Assessment year: 2014-15 Emporis Properties Pvt. Ltd..................................…..............................……Appellant 5th Floor, 16A, Brabourne Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata-1. [PAN: AADCE0793Q] vs. PCIT, Kolkata-2...................….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate and Mita Riz…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Surekha Sudhakar Jadhavar, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 151/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.151/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Accit, Circle-6, Surekha Sudhakar Jadhavar, Pune. Vs. 64, Indraprastha, Wadgaon Bk, Kranti Nagar, Pune – 411041. Pan: Afspj 9291 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P Kumar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 05.05.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ito, Wd-6(2), Pune/360/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.151/PUN/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The ACCIT, Circle-6, Surekha Sudhakar Jadhavar, Pune. Vs. 64, Indraprastha, Wadgaon Bk, Kranti Nagar, Pune – 411041. PAN: AFSPJ 9291 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Sachin P Kumar – AR Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – DR Date of hearing 12/08/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This Revenue’s appeal for Assessm…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Panaji vs. Shri Lalji Purushottam Babhoyya Patel, Altinho

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 361/PAN/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITO, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. PAN: ABAPD1169Q Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. ACIT, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. PAN: ABAPD1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17.0…

Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Patel, Altinho vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 339/PAN/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Pan: Abapd1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. Acit, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. Pan: Abapd1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Panaji-1, Dated 31.05.2018 For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita Nos.361 & 339/Pan/2018 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor Carrying On The Business At Panaji, Goa. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.9,02,333/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making The Following Additions:- I) Unexplained Cash Credit - Rs.27,33,000.00 Ii) Unconfirmed Creditors - Rs. 6,30,000.00 Iii) Depreciation Disallowance - Rs. 1,03,697.00

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 ITO, Vs. Shri Lalji Purshottam Dabhoyya Ward 1(1), Patel, Panaji, Hill View, Althinho, Goa. Panaji, Goa- 403 001. PAN: ABAPD1169Q Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Lalji Purshottam Vs. ACIT, Dabhoyya Patel, Circle -1(1), Hill View, Althinho, Panaji, Panaji, Goa- 403 001. Goa. PAN: ABAPD1169Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17.0…