CIT v. Geetadevi Pasari

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. - 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

…the time it was handed over to the purchasers. In this regard, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Geetadevi Pasari reported in 14 SOT 463 (Mum) which was confirmed by the Hon‟ble Jurisidictional High Court in 17 DTR 280 (Bom), supports the case of the assessee. Hence, we hold that sale consideration for transfer of RPH property should be considered only at Rs.33.13 Crores for the A.Y.2002-03. Hence the first question raised hereinabove is decided in favour of the assessee. 10.11. With regard to bifurcation of sale consideration of Rs.33.13 Crores between land an…

ITO-16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. THAKERSHI A. VEERA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negi

…heavily on various decisions including the judgment of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom.) and another decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geetadevi Pasari (2009) (17 DTR 280) (Bom.) apart from many other decisions. Para 2.4.4 of the CIT (A)‟s order is relevant in this regard. CIT (A) opined that the facts of the present case are in parimateria with the above cited decisions (Para 2.4.5 is relevant). However, CIT (A) has remarked that the assessee had planned to transfer the flat only to save taxes and also highlighted…

BIMLA DEVI D SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri D. Karunakara Rao

…de before the AO and relied heavily on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (260 ITR 491) (Bom.) and another decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geetadevi Pasari (2009) (17 DTR 280) (Bom.) apart from many other decisions which are relevant for the proposition that the date of possession of the property is relevant. Assessee also argued that the major portion of the payment ie 80% was already paid in the period one year from the date of transfer of the original asset. After considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A)…

PANKAJ KHANDELWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

…of learned A.O. which is mainly based on submission of the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A)17 erred in disallowing the claim of the appellant without considering the direct decision of jurisdictional High Court, in the case of CIT V/s. Geetadevi Pasari (2009) 17 DTR 280 (Bom).” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 22.02.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.25,31,440/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”). Thereafter, the case was selected 2 A.Y. 2010-11 for scrutiny and notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Ac…

ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI vs. JAWAHARLAL L AGICHA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 17(3) Shri Jawaharlal L. Agicha R.No.614, 6Th Floor, 99, Ray Road, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033 Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adjpa2926K Revenue By Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit-Dr) Respondent By Shri Hiro Rai (Ar)

…High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT (supra) which was dated 13th February 2003. It was thus submitted that view expressed in more recent judgment should be followed. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of CIT v. Geetadevi Pasari 17 DTR 280 (Bom) dated 10th July 2008 wherein it was held that relevant year for the purpose of computation of capital gain will be the assessment year in which purchaser was actually and physically put in the possession. It was emphasized that in this judgment, earlier judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT…