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 366,339 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

section 54fsection 54long term capital gainsservice of noticelong term capital gaincondonation of delaytransferperson

Judgments citing CIT v. Citibank

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

…aw in the matter is well settled, and toward which we may cite the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC), the Tribunal decision in which case stands relied upon by the AO; and CIT v. Citi Bank N.A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom), besides that decided by the Tribunal, as for example in Our Lady of Band Engg. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 3109/Mum/2012 dated 29.06.2015). As a corollary, the sale consideration accruing on the assignment/transfer would require being allocated, on some reasonable basis, between the two capital assets. The AO has caused the same th…

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

…aw in the matter is well settled, and toward which we may cite the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC), the Tribunal decision in which case stands relied upon by the AO; and CIT v. Citi Bank N.A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom), besides that decided by the Tribunal, as for example in Our Lady of Band Engg. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 3109/Mum/2012 dated 29.06.2015). As a corollary, the sale consideration accruing on the assignment/transfer would require being allocated, on some reasonable basis, between the two capital assets. The AO has caused the same th…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/S. I. K. International Pvt. Ltd

ITA/791/2011HC Delhi29 Mar 2012
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 50(2)Section 54E

…pital gains are exempt under Section 54EC of the Act. 17. We are fortified in our conclusion by the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Dr. D. L. Ramachandra Rao, (1999) 236 ITR 1 and that of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Citibank N.A., (2003) 261 ITR 570. We may also notice the judgment of the Privy Council in Narayan Das Ketty v. Jatindra Nath Roy Chowdhry, AIR 1927 PC 135 in which it has been held that having regard to the law in India it is possible to have separation of ownership of building from the ownership of the land. This view of the Privy Council was approved by the Supreme Cour…