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 366,339 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 148Section 143(3)Section 147Section 48Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 45
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53asection 53section 2(47)jdajoint development agreementsection 49right to receiveproject completion methodtransfer of capital assetsection 45date of transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

Shri. Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 133ASection 2(47)(v)Section 250

…buji Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs. CIT reported in 260 ITR 491 and also in the case of T.K. Dayalu 202 Taxmann 500 (Karn). Kola Venkat Rama Naidu, Bangalore Page 13 of 33 Further, he also relied on the judgement in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini reported in 398 ITR 531 (SC). He also relied on the order of Tribunal Cochin bench in the case of Smt. Hema Mohanlal for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.367/Coch/2017 dated 27.12.2018, wherein held as under:- “ 7. We have carefully perused the JDA entered between the assessee and the developer. As per the JDA (in page 3 para 4), the construction should have completed…

Rakesh Yashwant Shinde, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 8(3), Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1133/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1133/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwanth Shinde, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.24, Rachana Industrial Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Complex, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune – 411034. Pan: Aorps 8006F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 05.03.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-13/16- 17/583/617, 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 271Section 53A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.1133/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwanth Shinde, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.24, Rachana Industrial Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Complex, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune – 411034. PAN: AORPS 8006F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 13/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This assessee’s appeal f…

Mr.Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R
Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

…n of property by separate document on 7.6.2014, it cannot be presumed by AO that assessee has given the possession of property on 31.1.2014. Further, we also place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini in 398 ITR 531, wherein it was held as follows:- • “The JDA was between the housing society, who was referred to as the owner, and two developers. Strewn throughout the agreement is the fact that the owner, being absolutely seized and possessed of the property, was desirous of assigning its development rights for developing the same. [Para 13] • A reading of t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4876/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

…Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) 4. Shri Sadia Shaikh Tax Appeal No. 11 Shri Sadia Shaikh Tax Appeal No. 11 of 2013 dated 02/12/13 ( of 2013 dated 02/12/13 ( Karnataka) Karnataka) 5. Balveer Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 (SC) Balveer Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 (SC) 6. Faradin Khan 304 CTR 299 (Bom) Faradin Khan 304 CTR 299 (Bom) 10.2 In the case of CS Atwal (supra) CS Atwal (supra), Hon’ble High Court observed , Hon’ble High Court observed legislative intent behind incorporating clause (v) to section 2(47) of legislative intent behind incorporating clause (v) to sec…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 4875/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

…Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) 4. Shri Sadia Shaikh Tax Appeal No. 11 Shri Sadia Shaikh Tax Appeal No. 11 of 2013 dated 02/12/13 ( of 2013 dated 02/12/13 ( Karnataka) Karnataka) 5. Balveer Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 (SC) Balveer Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 (SC) 6. Faradin Khan 304 CTR 299 (Bom) Faradin Khan 304 CTR 299 (Bom) 10.2 In the case of CS Atwal (supra) CS Atwal (supra), Hon’ble High Court observed , Hon’ble High Court observed legislative intent behind incorporating clause (v) to section 2(47) of legislative intent behind incorporating clause (v) to sec…

Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

ITA 3773/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shankarlal L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

…Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) Dilip Anand Vazirani Vs ITO 167 TTJ 194(Bom) 4. Shri Sadia Shaikh Tax Appeal No. 11 Shri Sadia Shaikh Tax Appeal No. 11 of 2013 dated 02/12/13 ( of 2013 dated 02/12/13 ( Karnataka) Karnataka) 5. Balveer Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 (SC) Balveer Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 (SC) 6. Faradin Khan 304 CTR 299 (Bom) Faradin Khan 304 CTR 299 (Bom) 10.2 In the case of CS Atwal (supra) CS Atwal (supra), Hon’ble High Court observed , Hon’ble High Court observed legislative intent behind incorporating clause (v) to section 2(47) of legislative intent behind incorporating clause (v) to sec…

Smt Munilakshamamma, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-7, Bangalore

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

ITA 880/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.T.Srinivas Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 45Section 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.880/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 Smt.Munilakshamamma The Income Tax Officer #23, CKC Garden, Lalbagh Road Ward 7(2)(2) v. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 005. PAN : ADVPM6870E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.T.Srinivas Rao, CA Respondent by : Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 05.07.2022 Date of Hearing : 14.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 24.01.2017.…

M/S Noorani Properties (P) Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Appeals are allowed

WTA/11/2016HC Karnataka30 Jun 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

Section 27

…was handed over to the CIDL. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following authorities: • Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Balbir Singh Maini14 14 [2017] 398 ITR 531 (para 18 & 20) W.T.A No.11 OF 2016 C/W W.T.A NO.9 OF 2016 W.T.A NO.10 OF 2016 12 • Seshasayee Steels (P…

Prathamesh Developers, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1596/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 17Section 55A

…for the year in appeal. It is an admitted fact that no registered sale deed was executed in the financial year 2011-12, when the alleged sale took place from the assessee firm to Mr. K.R. Bora. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531(SC) has held that if an agreement for sale of immovable property is not registered, it does not amount to transfer in view of the 2001 amendment carried out to section 55A of the Transfer of Property Act and also simultaneous 4 Prathamesh Developers amendments to section 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. In that view of the matter,…

Neptune Polymers Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground Number 5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 249/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 250

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2015-16 Neptune Polymers Pvt. The ITO, Ltd. 529/10/1 Old Daliya Ward-3(1)(1), Building Opp. Town Hall, Vs Ambawadi, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Ltd. PAN: AAACN9080A (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. Revenue by: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal f…

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

…lant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 28. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition: a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 29. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of lower a…

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153A

…lant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 28. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition: a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 29. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of lower a…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…llant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 25. The ld. DR reli…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…llant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 25. The ld. DR reli…

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…llant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 25. The ld. DR reli…

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

…llant has not acquired any right to receive income under the MOU. As such, no profits or gains 'arose' from the transfer of a capital asset. 24. The ld. AR submitted that the above principles are squarely covered by the ruling of the SC in Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531). The following rulings also support this proposition:- ITA Nos.752 to 755/Bang/2019 Page 28 of 79 a. CIT v. City Lubricants Ltd. (129 taxmann.com 267); Madras HC; b. Seshasayee Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (421 ITR 46); SC; c. Pr. CIT v. Fardeen Khan (411 ITR 533); Bombay HC; d. ACIT v. Ijyaraj Singh (183 ITD 237); Jaipur ITAT. 25. The ld. DR reli…

Pravin Laxmichand Chheda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Pravin Laxmichand Vs. Acit – 24(3) Chheda Room No. 413, 4Th 302, Aavishkar Society, Floor, Piramal Sv Road, Irla Bridge Chambers, Parel Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400058 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc1278P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Yogesh Thar. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 36, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. (A) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer Of Assessing The Loan Taken From Sadguru Krupa Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Herein Referred As "Company") On 05.05.2013 Of Pravin Laxmichand Chheda., Mumbai. Rs.25,00,000/- As Deemed Dividend U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (B) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Company Did Not Have Accumulated Profits As On The Date On Which The Loan Was Advanced. (C) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Manner Of Computation Of Accumulated Profits Adopted By The Learned Assessing Officer. (D) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law By Not Appreciating The Fact That The Company Had Followed The Principles Of Revenue Recognition Laid Down In Accounting Standard 9 Issued By Icai. (E) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law In Relying On The Statement Of Mr. Dllip Porwal Without Giving Your Appellant The Opportunity To Cross-Examine Him. (F) Your Appellant Prays That The Additions Made U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Against The Provisions Of Law & Against The Principals Of Natural Justice & May Please Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Mr.Yogesh Thar. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Naveen Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…any, as was attributable to capital gain made by transfer of furniture which was transferred prior to 1-4-1948 was assessable - Held, yes Pravin Laxmichand Chheda., Mumbai. 9. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, [2017] 398 ITR 531(SC) has held as under: Section 2(47), read with sections 45 and 48, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Transfer (Joint Development Agreement) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether where for want of permissions, entire transaction of development of land envisaged in Joint Development Agreement (JDA) fell through, there would be no profit…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. T.V. Janardhana Rao, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above

ITA 1478/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Gurram Rama Chandra RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 534Section 53ASection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member ITA Nos.1477 & 1478/Hyd/2016 Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner | Vs. | Sri Tummala Chittaiah, of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle — 2(4), Hyderabad. PAN : ABTPT7370C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: | Shri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao Revenue by: | Sri Rajendra Kumar. Date of hearing: 15.02.2022 Date of pronouncement: 24.02.2022 ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’s twin appeals for A.Y 2…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Tummala Chittaiah, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above

ITA 1477/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Gurram Rama Chandra RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 534Section 53ASection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member ITA Nos.1477 & 1478/Hyd/2016 Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner | Vs. | Sri Tummala Chittaiah, of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle — 2(4), Hyderabad. PAN : ABTPT7370C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: | Shri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao Revenue by: | Sri Rajendra Kumar. Date of hearing: 15.02.2022 Date of pronouncement: 24.02.2022 ORDER Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These Revenue’s twin appeals for A.Y 2…

Shri Barjinderpal Singh Bhullar, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (3), Bathinda

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 672/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 671 & 672/(Asr)/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Brijinderpal Singh Bhullar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H. No. 2382, Sector 71, Ward-1(3), Bathinda S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali [PAN: EFLPB 2067E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR Date of Hearing: 24.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against t…