CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.

273 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2005#719 most cited

What is CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. authority for?

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

140

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. · surrender of tenancy rights · capital asset · transfer · capital receipt · section 45 · section 48 · section 55(2) · cost of acquisition · capital gains tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 14Section 48Section 56Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

profit split methodsection 54esection 115jcsection 55(2)section 54ecminimum alternate taxsection 80ib(10)section 55section 40(a)(ii)section 115jasection 92fsection 32(1)(ii)

Judgments citing CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…t. CST [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 1 SCC 625 (III) M P Oil Extraction v. State of MP [1997] 7 SCC 592 (d) The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section.” CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713 (SC). (e) In the newly inserted sec. 115JC the legislature clearly mention that "deduction claimed, if any, under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes";, i.e. If the legislature have intention :; not give benefit of sec. 80IB(10) for the purpose of MAT calculation then legislature will also provide same type of p…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…stt. CST [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 1 SCC 625 (III) M P Oil Extraction v. State of MP [1997] 7 SCC 592 (d)The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section.” CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713 (SC). (e)In the newly inserted sec. 115JC the legislature clearly mention that…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 489/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…stt. CST [2006] 148 STC 225 (SC) (II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 1 SCC 625 (III) M P Oil Extraction v. State of MP [1997] 7 SCC 592 (d)The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section.” CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. [2005] 273 ITR 1/142 Taxman 713 (SC). (e)In the newly inserted sec. 115JC the legislature clearly mention that…

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

…the computation mechanism under section 48 fails by holding that to compute capital gains there must be an element of consideration received or accruing to the assessee. The CIT erred in ignoring that the Supreme Court in CIT v D. P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P Ltd 273 ITR 1 has held that, for S 48 to apply, consideration should be capable of being determined. 3) Cost of Acquisition of remaining shares. The CIT erred in failing to note the provisions of S 55(2)(v)(b) and in not confirming that the cost of remaining shares would include the cost of the shares cancelled on Reduction." 2. The assessee has also raised an…

Alstom T & D India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2094/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…essee was from M/s. Harsaran Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which had nothing to do with the landlord. Given the fact that tenancy right is a capital asset, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 / 142 Taxman 713 (SC) that the surrender of tenancy rights amounted to transfer and hence, being a capital receipt, on the facts thus placed before this Court that :-22-: ITA. Nos: 2081 & 2082/Chny/2014 & 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 the amount paid on account of surrender of tenancy rights being given by the assessee to the builder, there is no exchange…

Alstom T & D India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2093/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…essee was from M/s. Harsaran Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which had nothing to do with the landlord. Given the fact that tenancy right is a capital asset, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 / 142 Taxman 713 (SC) that the surrender of tenancy rights amounted to transfer and hence, being a capital receipt, on the facts thus placed before this Court that :-22-: ITA. Nos: 2081 & 2082/Chny/2014 & 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 the amount paid on account of surrender of tenancy rights being given by the assessee to the builder, there is no exchange…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Areva T & D India Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2082/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…essee was from M/s. Harsaran Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which had nothing to do with the landlord. Given the fact that tenancy right is a capital asset, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 / 142 Taxman 713 (SC) that the surrender of tenancy rights amounted to transfer and hence, being a capital receipt, on the facts thus placed before this Court that :-22-: ITA. Nos: 2081 & 2082/Chny/2014 & 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 the amount paid on account of surrender of tenancy rights being given by the assessee to the builder, there is no exchange…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Areva T & D India Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2081/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…essee was from M/s. Harsaran Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which had nothing to do with the landlord. Given the fact that tenancy right is a capital asset, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 / 142 Taxman 713 (SC) that the surrender of tenancy rights amounted to transfer and hence, being a capital receipt, on the facts thus placed before this Court that :-22-: ITA. Nos: 2081 & 2082/Chny/2014 & 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 the amount paid on account of surrender of tenancy rights being given by the assessee to the builder, there is no exchange…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 87/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…reme Court observes that, "when an amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business”. 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd., 273 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 86/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…reme Court observes that, "when an amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business”. 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd., 273 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 85/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…reme Court observes that, "when an amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business”. 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd., 273 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the…

M/S Vatsalya Builders, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Centarl Circle 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 210/NAG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…reme Court observes that, "when an amount is credited in the business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business”. 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd., 273 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

…004) 192 CTR (SC) 492 : (2005) 1 SCC 625 (III) MP Oil Extraction vs. State of MP (1997) 7 SCC 592 17. The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section. [ CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. (2005) 193 CTR (SC) 578 : (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC) ]. 18. In the newly inserted s. 115JC, the legislature clearly mentions that "Deduction claimed, if any, under the heading 'C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes'", i.e., if the legislature have intention not to give benefit of s. 80-IB(l0) for the purpose of MAT calculation, then legislature will also provide same type of provision in s…

Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 211/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Jitendra Nemichand Gupta, I.T.O., B-102, Swastik Woods, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(2), Vs. Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Ammpg 2317 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

…) 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bang Trib) (8) Dr. T.A. Qureshi Vs CIT 287 ITR 0547 (SC) (9) Lakhmichand Baijnath vs CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC) 6 Jitendra Nemichand Gupta Vs ITO (10) Naliniknat Ambalal Mody Vs CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC) (11) CIT Vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. 273 ITR 1 (SC) (12) CIT Vs Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj) (13) J.K. Choksi Vs ACIT Tax Appeal No. 149 of 2003 (14) Green Associates Vs PCIT Tax Appeal No. 1199 of 2018 (Guj)] (15) CIT Vs Mhaskar General Hospital in Tax Appeal No. 1474 of 2009 (Guj) (16) Daulataram Rawatmull Vs CIT 64 ITR 593 (Cal) (17) Mansfield and Sons Vs CI…

Thakordas Parekh & Sons, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…bmission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon on the following case law:  Dr. T.A. Qureshi vs. CIT 287 ITR 547 (SC)  Lakhmichand Baijnnath vs. CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC)  Nalinikant Ambalal Mody vs. CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC)  CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. 273 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT vs. Shilpa dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj)  J.K. Chokshi vs. ACIT Tax Appeal No.149 of 2003 (Guj)  Green Associates vs. PCIT -Tax Appeal No.1199 of 2018 (Guj)  DCIT vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. 329 ITR 1 (Guj)  CIT vs. Mhaskar General Hospital in Tax Appeal No.1474 of 2009 (Guj)  Daulatram Rawatmull vs. C…

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…by Honourable Supreme Court that "whether an income falls under one head or another has to be decided according to the common notions of practical man because the Act does not provide any guidance in the matter." • CIT v/s. DP. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. - 273 ITR 1 (SC) It has been held by Honourable Supreme Court that "there cannot be any headless income. So the ratio of decision of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan - 247 ITR 290 is not applicable."  CIT v. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. - 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj.)  J.K. Chokshi vs. ACIT- Tax Appeal 149 of 2003 (Guj.) It has been held by Honourable High Cour…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (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 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-o…

Commissioner of Income Tax TDS vs. M/S Mewar Hospital Pvt Ltd

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

Bhima Jewellers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/15/2021HC Kerala25 Aug 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERSFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 115Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…of 2021 -11- reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act was not considered. Referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur Pvt. Ltd. MANU/SC/0070/2005 [2005] 273 ITR 1 (SC); [2005] 193 CTR (SC) 578 and in Untied Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT MANU/SC/0060/1957 (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC) it was held that the Act does not envisage taxing of any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act and therefore there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the judgment of that court. 9. But…

;Marie Gold Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 825/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth KotariFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)

…the M/s. Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Ltd., assessee was from M/s. Harsaran Singh Constructions Pvt Ltd., which had nothing to do with the landlord. Given the fact that tenancy right is a capital asset, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in (2005} 273 ITR 1 (SC) (CIT Vs. D.P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd.) that the surrender of tenancy rights amounted to transfer and hence, being a capital receipt, on the facts thus placed before this Court that the amount paid on account of surrender of tenancy rights being given by the assessee to the builder, there is no exchange of one property for the other. Hence…