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.

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…ase of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan,that income cannot fall beyond the five heads made under the act. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. 273 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which has not been excluded from the total income under the act only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been plac…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…ase of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan,that income cannot fall beyond the five heads made under the act. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. 273 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which has not been excluded from the total income under the act only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been plac…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 320/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…ase of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan,that income cannot fall beyond the five heads made under the act. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. 273 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which has not been excluded from the total income under the act only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been plac…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 319/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…ase of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan,that income cannot fall beyond the five heads made under the act. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. 273 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which has not been excluded from the total income under the act only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been plac…

Romiel Samuel, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 437/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 5O

…w business it is not possible to determine the date when it comes into existence. Another important judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in this context is CIT Vs D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd or Union of India Vs Cadell Weaving Mills Co. P. Ltd [2005] 273 ITR 1 (SC). It was held in this case that – (i) The tenancy right was a capital asset and surrender of tenancy right was a transfer and the consideration received thereof was a capital receipt, within the meaning of section 45 and 48(ii) 18 of the Act. The amendment to section 55(2) took effect from 1.4.1995 and applied in relation to assessment year 19…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Marshal Machines Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

ITA 57/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K. SudFor Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh
Section 133ASection 69

…ase of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan,that income cannot fall beyond the five heads made under the act. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CIT vs. D.P. Sandhu & Bros. 273 ITR 1 wherein it has been held that section 56 provides for chargeability of income of every kind which has not been excluded from the total income under the act only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been plac…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Venkatesh Premises Coop.Sty.Ltd

C.A. No.-002706-002706 - 2018Supreme Court12 Mar 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

Section 79

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2706 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 30194/2010) INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS VENKATESH PREMISES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ….RESPONDENT(S) with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3827 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3271 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3272 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2997 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8741 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2708 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32061/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2707 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 30195/2010) CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).2713 OF 2018 (arising out…

Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT - 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2964/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Vs. Cit-13, Mumbai Ltd., 801, Hubtown Solaris, N.S.Phadke Marg Off. Teli Galli, Near Andheri Flyover Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 069 Pan/Gir No. Aaccn7092E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 263Section 80Section 80I

…Asst. CST (2006) 148 STC 225 (SC) II) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., vs. CIT (2005) 1 SCC 625 III) M P 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.Sandhu Brothers 273 ITR 1 (SC) 18. 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.8OIB(l0) for the purpose of MAT calculation then legislature will also provide same type of provision in sectio…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…the full consideration cannot be taxed u/s 56, similarly entire share premium is not taxable u/s 56(1). 36 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs Godawari Estates Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata ii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd 273 ITR 1 also hold that as per 2(24)(vi) only income which is chargeable u/s 45 is to be included in income and if computation provision u/s 45 fails then charging provisions will fail. Ref. to CIT V B.C. Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR 294. iv) The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the Case of CIT V Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog 269 ITR 399 also held that in case co…

Msc Crewing Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7110/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodmsc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 8(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 .... Respondent Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 10(2)(2) R.No.209,Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 Vs. Msc Crewing Services Private Limited, Msc House, 2Nd-3Rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaecm 1876B Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By : Shri N.K.Chand Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/01/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11 Order

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Chand
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(i)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 47Section 56Section 68Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER MSC Crewing Services Private Limited, MSC House, 2nd-3rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. PAN: AAECM 1876B ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 8(2), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 .... Respondent Dy.Commissioner Income-Tax , Circle 10(2)(2) R.No.209,Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 006 Vs. MSC Crewing Services Private Limited, MSC House, 2nd-3rd Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. PAN: AAECM 1876B…

Digital Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3258/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Shri B. S. Bist, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Digital Electronics Ltd. Vs. ACIT 8 (1), Aayakar Bhavan 86, Jolly Maker Chambers No.II, 8th Floor, Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 PAN No. AAACD1798F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi,AR Respondent By : Shri B. S. Bist, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.08.2016 & 02.12.2016 Date of pronouncement : 16.12.2016 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2007-08. Th…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Rahil Agencies, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4413/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of sections 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of O. P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005] 273 ITR 1 has dealt with this very issue while deciding the treatment to be given to a transaction of surrender of tenancy right. The earlier decisions of the apex court commencing from the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 688 (SC) have been considered by the apex court and, hence, it is not necessary to repeat the same. Suffice it to…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…e possession of a property as a tenant, is a valuable right, which falls within the meaning of the term ―capital asset‖ under section 2(14) of the Act. The aforesaid decision has been noted with approval by Supreme Court in D.P. Sandhu Bros., Chembur P. Ltd.: 273 ITR 1 (SC).To the same effect is the recent decision of the Hon‘ble Madras High Court in the case of Madathul Brothers v. DCIT: 301 ITR 345 (Mad.) h) In view of the above, it could be argued that, if premium paid for obtaining lease is disallowed as capital expenditure on the ground of vesting substantial leasehold rights with the assessee, then such le…

Shib Narayan Kshettry -HUF, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-38(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 723/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 55(2)

…e, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Srinivasa Setty (B.C.) was not applicable. In this regard, he relied on the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT –vs.- D.P. Sandu Bros., Chembur (P) Limited reported in 273 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it was held that an asset which is capable of acquisition at the cost would be included within the provisions pertaining to the head “Capital Gains” as opposed to assets in the acquisition of which no cost at all can be conceived. He also relied on the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT in I.T.A. No. 723/KOL./2015 Assessment year:…

D.C.I.T. Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs. Vibhadeep Investment & Trading Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as the Cross Objection

ITA 4466/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Sri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vibhadeep Investment & Income Tax-3(3), Room Trading Ltd., Mafatlal House, No.609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar H. T. Parekh Marg, Backbay Bhavan, M. K. Road, Reclamation, Mumbai 400 Mumbai 400 020 020 Pan: Aaacv 1946 M Appellant .. Respondent C. O. No.155/Mum/2013 (In Ita No.4466/Mum/2012- Ay: 2008-09)

Section 115JSection 143Section 28

…(iv) or u/s 41 (1) of the Act and that even the capital receipt is not chargeable to tax u/s 2 (24) of the Act. In this regard, the learned AR placed reliance on the judicial pronouncement rendered in the case of CIT Vs. D. P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [273 ITR 1 (SC)]. 7. After hearing both the parties and analyzing the judicial pronouncements as well as the orders of the authorities below we are of the view that the moot question for consideration before us is as to whether the receipt is capital or revenue in nature and whether the 9 CO No.155/Mum/2013 assessee was in the business of financing or trad…

Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III
Section 263

…) CIT v. Dhanraj Dugar [137 ITR 350] (Cal) v) CIT v. Mrs. Grace Collis & Others [248 ITR 323] (SC) vi) S. Zoraster & Co. V. CIT [322 ITR 35] (Raj) vii ) Travancore Rubber & Tea & Co. Ltd v. CIT [243 ITR 158] (SC) viii) CIT v. D. P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd [273 ITR 1] (SC) ix) Syndicate Bank Ltd v. ACIT [(1985) 155 ITR 68] Further according to him there could be no capital gains since there was no transfer of any capital asset by virtue of agreement for sale. According to him no cost could be computed. When no cost could be computed there was no question of levy of capital gains. For this reliance was placed on…

ACIT, Haridwar vs. M/S Sant Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Kotdwar

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2809/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

…er sources and eligible for setoff against business loss. In support of his contention, the learned AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. DP Sandu Brothers Chamber (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC), decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No. 256/AHD/2011 dated 12/09/2014 in the case of ACIT, circle 4, Surat Vs. M/s Shree Raghupati Fibers Private Limited , judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT versus Radhe developers India Ltd (2010) 329 ITR 01 (Guj) and judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the…

ACIT, Haridwar vs. M/S Sant Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Kotdwar

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2808/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 71

…er sources and eligible for setoff against business loss. In support of his contention, the learned AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. DP Sandu Brothers Chamber (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC), decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No. 256/AHD/2011 dated 12/09/2014 in the case of ACIT, circle 4, Surat Vs. M/s Shree Raghupati Fibers Private Limited , judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT versus Radhe developers India Ltd (2010) 329 ITR 01 (Guj) and judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Asian Star Diamonds Iternational P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4412/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…ed that the subsequent decision of Gujarat High Court has noted that the earlier decision did not consider the sec.14 and sec. 56 of the on a conjoint basis. It was argued that the Apex Court decision in the case of D.P.Sandhu Brothers Chembur Pvt. Ltd.(2005) 273 ITR 1 supports the view that all income has to fall in one of the heads of the income provided in the income tax act. Some decisions were cited to support the view that the income reflecting the unaccounted stock of diamond during income from other sources. It was then argued that the current year’s loss should be set off against the income in terms of s…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. 'A' Star Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4411/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4411/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S ‘A’ Star Exports, No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo 114/116, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfv 4508 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4412/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-2012) Acit, Central Circle-13, Room Vs. M/S Asian Star Diamonds No.1103, 11Th Floor Old Cgo International Pvt. Ltd., Building (Annex.) M.K.Road, 114, Mittal Court, C- Wing, 11Th Floor, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 4726 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…ed that the subsequent decision of Gujarat High Court has noted that the earlier decision did not consider the sec.14 and sec. 56 of the on a conjoint basis. It was argued that the Apex Court decision in the case of D.P.Sandhu Brothers Chembur Pvt. Ltd.(2005) 273 ITR 1 supports the view that all income has to fall in one of the heads of the income provided in the income tax act. Some decisions were cited to support the view that the income reflecting the unaccounted stock of diamond during income from other sources. It was then argued that the current year’s loss should be set off against the income in terms of s…