CIT v. Citibank

261 ITR 570High Court2003#5017 most cited

What is CIT v. Citibank authority for?

A flat owner acquires a right to possession and a proportionate right in the undivided share of land, leading to automatic membership in a cooperative society, which grants ownership of that undivided share.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v Citibank 261 ITR 570 · Bombay High Court · undivided share in land · flat owners rights · cooperative society membership · capital gains · section 54f · section 54

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Citibank

Trilok Parumal Motiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue

ITA 4542/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyaltrilok Parumal Motiani, 213/214, Kalyandas Udyog Bhavan, Near Century Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aahpm3289N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian Respondent By : Sh. Purnesh Gururani, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2023 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai (For Short ‘Cit(A)’) Dated 30.04.2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Sh. Purnesh Gururani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 48

…gations to be fulfilled by the assessee and other counterparts. 11. To substantiate its version assessee relied upon following case laws I. CIT Vs TATA Services Ltd 122 ITR 594 (Bomb) II. PCIT Vs Vembu Vaidyanathan 413 ITR 248(Bomb) III. CIT Vs City Bank N.A 261 ITR 570 (Bomb) IV. Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs CIT 260 ITR 491 (Bomb) V. CIT Vs Rajasthan Mirror Manufacturing Co 6 ITA No. 4542 Mum 2019-Trilok Parumal Motiani 12. In view of the above factual matrix and the judicial pronouncement of honourable jurisdictional high court we set aside the orders of the authorities below and accept the contentions o…

Mr Sanjay Dutt, Mumbai vs. JCIT Range 11 (1), Mumbai

ITA 91/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

…decided this issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- 6 ITA NO. 2414/MUM/2015 (A.Y.2005-06) ITA NO. 92/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2012-13) “35. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we notice that in the case of CIT v Citibank 261 ITR 570 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, wherein it was held that as per the above ratio, the flat owners will get right of possession as well as right on portion of the undivided share in the land. We notice that as per the proportionate area of flats occupied by him in respect of the total area of the building i.e. undivided share, the owner of th…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Dutt, Mumbai

ITA 2414/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

…decided this issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- 6 ITA NO. 2414/MUM/2015 (A.Y.2005-06) ITA NO. 92/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2012-13) “35. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we notice that in the case of CIT v Citibank 261 ITR 570 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, wherein it was held that as per the above ratio, the flat owners will get right of possession as well as right on portion of the undivided share in the land. We notice that as per the proportionate area of flats occupied by him in respect of the total area of the building i.e. undivided share, the owner of th…

Sanjay S. Dutt, Mumbai vs. Asst 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 7109/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh. आअसं. 7109/मुं/2012 ("न.व.2004-05) आअसं. 91/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2011-12) आअसं. 92/मुं/2020 ("न.व.2012-13) Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Heights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Aajpd-2027-K बनाम/ Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 11(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : ""थ"/ Respondent आअसं. 2414/मुं/2015 ("न.व.2005-06) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income –Tax 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant बनाम/ Vs. Sanjay S. Dutt, 1101, Imperial Hights, Smt. Nargis Dutt Road,Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 Pan:Aajpd-2027-K : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldana Revenue By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 54F

…decided this issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:- 6 ITA NO. 2414/MUM/2015 (A.Y.2005-06) ITA NO. 92/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2012-13) “35. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we notice that in the case of CIT v Citibank 261 ITR 570 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, wherein it was held that as per the above ratio, the flat owners will get right of possession as well as right on portion of the undivided share in the land. We notice that as per the proportionate area of flats occupied by him in respect of the total area of the building i.e. undivided share, the owner of th…

Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 1207/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1207/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta, The Income Tax Officer, New No. 4, Old No. 33, Vs. International Taxation 2(2), Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 34. Chennai – 17. [Pan:Biqps3751R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Srinivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 27.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13, Wherein, Besides The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Adjudicated The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee With Regard To The Claim Of Exemption Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Various Disallowances Made Under Section 50C Of The Act, Confirming Disallowance

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivasan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54Section 54F

…er section 54F of the Act from the capital gain chargeable under section 45 of the Act, the full value on transfer of asset should also be the same as determined by the Stamp Value Authority and not less than that. As explained in CIT v. Citi Bank N.A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom), the different provisions of Chapter IV-E of the Act form part of one integrated code. The same are to be read harmoniously and not disjointedly. A deeming provision, it is trite law, is to be read in light of the object of the provision and, further, is to be taken to its logical end. When, for the purpose of computation under section 48 o…

Maneet J Shah L/H. of Late Shri Jaimal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2485/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2485/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बनाम/ Shri Maneet J. Shah The Asstt. Comm. Of L/H Of Late Shri Jaimal Shah Income Tax Range 19(2) Vs. 901, Pritika Apartment, Mumbai Saraswati Road, Santacruz(West) Mumbai - 400054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aifps4804F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh Purushottamdas Shah Revenue By: Shri Saurabh K. Rai सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.02.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- A.Y.2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Haresh PurushottamdasFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh K. Rai
Section 263Section 54E

…has been adjudicated and it is specifically directed that the gain on account of sale of the land as well as superstructure are liable to be treated a separately in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Citibank N.A. (261 ITR 570). The order passed by the CIT(A) nowhere speaks about the assessment on the basis of gain on account of the sale of land as well as sale of superstructure separately. In view of the said circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) in question and direct the Assessing Officer to passed the order in view of the order passed by the Ho…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Firoz Tin Factory, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6756/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

Section 143(1)Section 50

…rom the other it is a long term capital gain, the benefit to the assessee cannot be denied in respect of the gain arising out of the sale of long term asset. 7.2 Attention is also drawn to the following observation of Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Citi Bank NA 261 ITR 570 (BOM) :- “CIT v. CITIBANK N.A. 261 ITR 570 (Bom).: Surplus realized from sale of land beneath the superstructure is long term capital gains and not a short term capital gain. Held, under Section 31 (1), no depreciation 'is admissible for land. Secondly, the department can assess the Company to short term capital gains only qua depreciable assets.…

Firoz Tin Factory, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6224/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

Section 143(1)Section 50

…rom the other it is a long term capital gain, the benefit to the assessee cannot be denied in respect of the gain arising out of the sale of long term asset. 7.2 Attention is also drawn to the following observation of Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Citi Bank NA 261 ITR 570 (BOM) :- “CIT v. CITIBANK N.A. 261 ITR 570 (Bom).: Surplus realized from sale of land beneath the superstructure is long term capital gains and not a short term capital gain. Held, under Section 31 (1), no depreciation 'is admissible for land. Secondly, the department can assess the Company to short term capital gains only qua depreciable assets.…

CIT v. Citibank (261 ITR 570) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax