CIT v. Daulal Mohta (HUF) (360 ITR 680)

BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida, D.C.I.T., Post Valak, Valak Kamrej, Circle-2(2), Vs. Surat-394180 Surat. Pan No. Bkdpm 8643 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54BSection 55A

…jurisdiction. The assessee has also relied on various case laws as under: 13 Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida Vs DCIT (i) CIT Vs Gauragiben S Shodhna (2014) 108 DTR 442 (Guj) (ii) CIT Vs Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs Daulal Mohta (HUF) (2014) 360 ITR 680 (Bom) (iv) Pradeep G Vora 58 taxmann.com 110 (Mum Trib)/(2015) 154 ITD 118 (Mum) (v) Rubab M Kazerani 91 ITD 429 (Mum-TM). (vi) Jagrutiben V Patel Vs ITO Ward 2(2)(2), Surat and Bharvinaben V Patel Vs ITO Ward 2(2)(2), Surat ITA No. 650 & 651/Ahd/2017) (vii) Shri Mahadevbhai Mohanbhai Naik (ITA No. 820/Ahd/2016) (viii) CIT Vs Nitin Jayantilal Sha…

VIJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 33(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 5244/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Vijay Kumar Seth, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 8, Vasant Enclave, Tax, Circle-33(1), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxps6514Q Assessee By : Sh. Karan Kumra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 55A

…n appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 15. We find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Daulal Mohta (HUF) (2014) 360 ITR 680 (Bom) wherein it has been held as under: “4. The Tribunal in its order dated July 23, 2004, has categorically observed thus: "5. The first issue that arises for our consideration is whether the reference made by the Assessing 10 Vijay Kumar Seth Officer to the DVO under section 55A is bad in law under the facts and circumstances of the case. Thi…

SANJAY KAILASCHAND BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1425/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

…questions (a), (b) and (c) as formulated by the revenue as they do not raise any substantial questions of law. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 11. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulal Mohta (HUF) reported in 360 ITR 680 has held that reference to DVO can only be made in a case where value of asset shown by the assessee is less than its fair market value of the land. 12. Following the same parity of reasoning, I hold that no reference can be made under section 55A of the Act in order to value the cost of acquisition of property as on 01.04.1981 at a figure lesser…

RAJENDRA KANHIYALAL BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1424/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

…questions (a), (b) and (c) as formulated by the revenue as they do not raise any substantial questions of law. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 11. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Daulal Mohta (HUF) reported in 360 ITR 680 has held that reference to DVO can only be made in a case where value of asset shown by the assessee is less than its fair market value of the land. 12. Following the same parity of reasoning, I hold that no reference can be made under section 55A of the Act in order to value the cost of acquisition of property as on 01.04.1981 at a figure lesser…

VIVINA CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 15(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4872/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am M/S Vivina Co. Op Hsg Society Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rg 15(2) Ltd. Vs. S.V. Rd, Andheri (W), Mumbai Mumbai-400 058 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaaav2507L Assessee By .. Surji D. Chheda, Ar Revenue By .. B.S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 05-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 05-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 50CSection 55A

…referring the matter to DVO. Section 55A can be invoked only in case there is no estimated value as estimate by registered valuer or submitted by assessee. This issue has been dealt by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulal Mohta (HUF) (2014) 360 ITR 680 (Bom) and also in the case of CIT vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom). 8. We have gone through the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Daulal Mohta (HUF) (Supra), wherein it is held as under:- “A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in reversing the Page 7 of 13 M/s…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ANIL T. KRIPLANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6358/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-2(2), Vs. Angeela Vasandani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Pan: Ahtpv3859Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Anil T. Kriplani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Pan: Bfspk8660Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Cit(A), Each Dated 24.09.2013 Passed For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, We Proceed To Decide

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 54E

…cation cannot be the basis. Hence, he submitted that the CIT(A)’s order is as per the law and he relied upon the following decisions: i. Haiben Jayantilal Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, [2009] 310 ITR 31 (Guj.) ii. CIT Vs. Daulal Mohta (HUF), [2014] 360 ITR 680 (Bom.); 6 iii. CIT Vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan, [2014] 367 ITR 238 (Guj.); iv. ACIT Vs. Sh. Raman K. Suri, ITA No. 4242/Mum./09, AY-2006-07, Dt. 30.04.2010 5. We heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. At the first instance, we shall deal with the validity of the reference made to DVO under Section 58 of the Act. The resp…

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. ANGEELA VASANDANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6081/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-2(2), Vs. Angeela Vasandani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Pan: Ahtpv3859Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ddit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Anil T. Kriplani, C-43, New Delhi Mayfair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (Pan: Bfspk8660Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Respondent By : Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Cit(A), Each Dated 24.09.2013 Passed For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. Since Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, We Proceed To Decide

For Appellant: Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay C. Kuthani, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 54E

…cation cannot be the basis. Hence, he submitted that the CIT(A)’s order is as per the law and he relied upon the following decisions: i. Haiben Jayantilal Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, [2009] 310 ITR 31 (Guj.) ii. CIT Vs. Daulal Mohta (HUF), [2014] 360 ITR 680 (Bom.); 6 iii. CIT Vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan, [2014] 367 ITR 238 (Guj.); iv. ACIT Vs. Sh. Raman K. Suri, ITA No. 4242/Mum./09, AY-2006-07, Dt. 30.04.2010 5. We heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. At the first instance, we shall deal with the validity of the reference made to DVO under Section 58 of the Act. The resp…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHWANI KUMAR MALIK, MEERUT

ITA 3871/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)Section 34ASection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH:‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 3871/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) ITO, vs Ashwani Kumar Malik, Ward 1(1), 4, Vardan Street No. 4/5, New Delhi. Thapar Nagar, Meerut. AAXPM8541R & Cross Objection No. 15/Del/2014 (In ITA No. 3871/Del/2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) Ashwani Kumar Malik, vs ITO, 4, Vardan Street No. 4/5, Ward 1(1), Thapar Nagar, Meerut. New Delhi. AAXPM8541R Appellant by Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, DR Respondent by Sh. Sandeep Sapra, Adv. & Sh. O.P. Sapra, Adv. Date of Hearing…

CIT v. Daulal Mohta (HUF)

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulal Mohta (HUF)