CIT v. Hindustan Hotels & Anr.

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI SUNIL DUTT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

…er of the cooperative society and retains the ownership to the said land by virtue of being a member of the cooperative society and he relied upon the following case laws and supported the findings of Ld. CIT(A):- 1. 261 ITR 570 (Bom) CITv Citibank N. A. 2. 335 ITR 60 (Bom) CIT v Hindustan Hotels Ltd. 3. 236 ITR 51 (Mad) CIT v Eh-. D L Ramachandra Rao 4. 304 ITR 27 (P&H) CIT v A S Aulakh 5. 201 ITR 442 (Raj) CIT v Vimal Chand Golecha 31 I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 & 1112/Mum/2013 Legal Heirs of Late Shri Sunil Dutt, 6. 242 ITR 342 (Kar) CIT v C R Subramaman 7. 254 ITR 152 (Cal) CITv Estate of Omprakash Jhunjh…

MADHU C. GANWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…nd facts. It 3 A.Y.2006-07 is specifically argued that the land as well at the construction cannot be separately to be assessed for the purpose of disallowing the Long Term / Short Term Capital Gain in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Hindustan Hotels Ltd. 335 ITR 60 Hon’ble Bombay High Court and CIT Vs. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon 264 ITR 76 Hon’ble Kerela High Court and CIT Vs. C.R.Subramanian 242 ITR 342 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha 201 ITR 442 Hon’ble Rajastan High Court which has not been considered by the Assessing Officer, therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. FIROZ TIN FACTORY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

…ather it is incumbent to segregate the two on the basis' of a reasonable estimation after taking into consideration the relevant facts available. Your kind attention is drawn to the observations of Hon 'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Hotels & Anr. 335 ITR 60 (BOM.) which are reproduced below: “ACIT V. Hindustan Hotels Ltd. & Anr. 335 ITR 60 (Born.): At para 10 the High Court observed that the decision in CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha (1993) 201 ITR 442 (Raj.) therein that the Rajasthan High Court has followed the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT V/s Dr. D.L. Ramchandra Rao (supra) and has held th…

FIROZ TIN FACTORY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

…ather it is incumbent to segregate the two on the basis' of a reasonable estimation after taking into consideration the relevant facts available. Your kind attention is drawn to the observations of Hon 'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Hotels & Anr. 335 ITR 60 (BOM.) which are reproduced below: “ACIT V. Hindustan Hotels Ltd. & Anr. 335 ITR 60 (Born.): At para 10 the High Court observed that the decision in CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha (1993) 201 ITR 442 (Raj.) therein that the Rajasthan High Court has followed the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT V/s Dr. D.L. Ramchandra Rao (supra) and has held th…

DCIT - 20(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. J.B. ENGG. WORKS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

…oted that decision of the Honourable Bombay High Court in the case CIT vs City bank NA 261 ITR 570 also supports the assessee's stand. It is further noted by us that this view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Hospitals 335 ITR 60 at pages 62 and 67. 13 J.B. Eng. Works 3.7. Thus, analysis of facts of this case, when compared with the judicial position as clarified by various courts, make it clear that the assessee had transferred two rights, namely the lease right which is a capital asset and the factory building which was offered to tax in terms of section 50. In our cons…