CIT v. Manjula J. Shah

Isc Speciality Chemicals LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.457/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ISC Specialty Vs Income Tax Officer, Chemicals LLP National e-Assessment 101, Atlanta, 209, Centre, Delhi/Incomce Tax Nariman Point, Officer, Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai 400006 Mumbai National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai PAN: AAGF17779A 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri. Dharan Gandhi Respondent by Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR Date of Hearing 5.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.05.…

Jasmine Bhaskar Shah, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

…hares received as gift by Assessee was not available in respect of the holding period of the previous owner even though the same is the various judicial pronouncements, including the decision of jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Manjula Shah 355 ITR 474 and hence the directions of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax were on account of change of opinion. 5. The Appellant prays that, the Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act dated 03.02.2025 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax be annulled, squashed and set aside. 6. The aforesaid Grounds of Appeal are independent, alternative and withou…

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

…ition with reference to year in which previous owner first held the asset. We note that the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax-12 vs. Manjula J. Shah [2013] 355 ITR 474 (Bombay). The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reads as under: “16. It is the contention of the revenue that since the indexed cost of acquisition as per clause (iii) of the Explanation to Section 48 of the Act has to be determined with reference to the Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which th…

Rajen Rajmalbhai Mehta, Surat vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Rajen Rajmalbhai Mehta, Assistant Commissioner Of 501, Swagat Complex, Income Tax, Vs. Near Mehta Park, Nanpura, Mumbai Surat, Gujarat – 395001 (Pan : Aabpm4155D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : None Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr

…owner. Thus, the indexation benefit has been allowed from the year in which cost of acquisition was incurred by the previous owner by following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay including in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah [2011] 355 ITR 474 (Bom.) 10. We note from the submissions that assessee had incurred renovation expenses for the property 158-B, Krishna Awas, Mumbai as under: i) Expenses in Financial Year 1983-84 - Rs.4,90,000/- ii) Expenses in Financial Year 1993-94 - Rs.11,20,000/- iii)Total improvement cost - Rs.16,10,000/- iv) Share of assessee at 50% - Rs.85,000/- 10.1. A…

Income Tax Officer (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rustom Fali Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…l, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the Indexation on the basis of Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), Wherein the department had filed SLP in that case which was dismissed without discussing the issue on merit as the tax effect involved in the said case was below Rs. 1 Crore. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the following expenses incurred by the assessee on transfer of his 15…

Income Tax Officer (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sohrab Fali Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

….1981-82. The ld. AO relied on the Circular No.636 issued by CBDT in this regard. The ld. CIT(A) however, agreed that the plea of the assessee by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J Shah reported in 355 ITR 474. 3.4. We find that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court referred to supra wherein the 6 Sohrab Fali Mehta Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court after due consideration of CBDT Circular No.636 had held that while computing capital gains arising of transfer of capital asset acquired by the as…