CIT v. Frick India Ltd.

369 ITR 328High Court2014#15717 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 271CSection 40(a)(ia)Section 80P
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Frick India Ltd.

Himachal Mitra Mandal Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward 1(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 777/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarhimachal Mitra Mandal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds Cooperative Credit Society बनाम Ward – 1(2)(3), Room No. Limited 419, 4Th Floor, Cumballa Hill C/O Vaish Associates, 106, Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Peninsula Centre, Dr. S.S. Road, Dr. Gopalrao Rao Road, Parel, Mumbai – Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400 012, Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaah0613D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi,(Sr. DR)
Section 194A(3)(v)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 5

…s held that co- operative credit societies carrying on banking business are to be treated as co-operative banks for the purpose of TDS provisions. e) Similarly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jafari Momin Vikas Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. [2014] 369 ITR 328 (Bom) has held that a co-operative credit society engaged in banking activities is to be treated as a co-operative bank for tax purposes. 4.2 Accordingly, it was held by him that the appellant was rightly considered as a co-operative bank for the purpose of TDS provisions. Consequently, the exemption under section 194A(3)(v) of the Act was not ap…

Bushra Javed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2003/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Bushra Javed, Vs. Acit, D-112, Circle Int. Taxation 2 Lower Ground Floor, (1)(1) Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110 017 Pan Afgpj3907C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 48

…t in CIT vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC); decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in CIT vs. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Frick India Ltd. 369 ITR 328. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. AO and submitted that the agreement to sale is not in the name of the assessee. It was in the year 2010 that first time the assessee’s name appeared as co-owner in the sale deed. The Ld. AR refuted this allegation and pointed out that perusal of the agreement to sale will reveal that it bears the…

Kiran Kaur Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-53(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1062/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhavi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 2(47)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

…date of allotment which is relevant for purpose of computing the holding period and not the date of registration or conveyance. [6] 6.2 The Assessee also relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Frick India Ltd., 369 ITR 328 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Court was pleased to hold that word used in section 2(42A) is with regard to the capital asset and the term “capital asset” is not confined and restricted to the ownership of property or an asset. Capital asset can consist of rights other than ownership right in an asset, like leasehold rights, allotment rights, etc. T…

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…ing sold such rights after holding them for more than 36 months, the capital asset is a long term asset in terms of provisions of section 2(29A) of the Act. For the above proposition, he referred to the following decisions:- 16 (i) CIT vs. Frick India Limited 369 ITR 328 (Del); (ii) PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. K. Rama krishnan [2014] 48 taxmann.com 55 (Delhi HC); (iv) Ms. Madhu Kaul vs. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 417 (Punjab & Haryana HC); (v) Anita D. Kanjani vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 67 (Mumbai - Trib.); (vi) L. Vivekananda vs. ACIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 67 (B…

M/S. Jai Laxmi Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal are partly allowed

ITA 5578/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Jai Laxmi Developers (P) Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Central Circle-21, 78-B, Sector-2, Dda Flats, New Delhi Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Iii, Delhi-96 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 263Section 50C

…od of holding commence from that date only. On reading of provisions of section 2(42A) the capital asset must be „held‟ by the assessee and not be „owned‟ by the assessee for more than 36 months. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Frick India Ltd 369 ITR 328 has held that capital asset „held‟ is not confined to or restricted to ownership of a property. It can also consist of rights other than ownership rights in an asset, like leasehold rights, allotment rights etc. The sequitur, therefore, is that the word “HELD or HOLD” is not synonymous with right over the asset as an „owner‟ and has to be given a…

ITO 5(2)4), Mumbai vs. P.M. Rungta (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7955/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito 5(2)(4) P.M. Rungta (Huf). 66 Ali R.No.571, Chambers, Tamarind Lane, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400023 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aafhp2630C Revenue By Shri Somnath Ukkal (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Nitesh Joshi (Ar)

Section 143(3)

…e was holding the property as beneficial owner since 1963. 6.4. With a view to simplify this issue further, we have analysed the meaning of the expression "held by the assessee", as has been used by the legislature in section 2(42A). In CIT vs Frick India Ltd 369 ITR 328 (Delhi), Hon’ble Delhi High Court got an occasion to elucidate and explain the meaning and scope of this expression. Relevant paras’ are reproduced below for the sake of clarity: 7 P.M. Rungta (HUF) “10. We would like to elucidate and explain the expression, "held by the assessee" in some detail. General words should normally receive plain and o…

CIT v. Frick India Ltd. (369 ITR 328) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax