How many judgments cite CIT v. Manjula J. Shah?

113 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Manjula J. Shah come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 45, Section 54, Section 2(47), Section 48, Section 49.

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah

355 ITR 474High Court2013#947 most cited

What is CIT v. Manjula J. Shah authority for?

For capital assets acquired by gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 is computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset. The period of holding for determining if an asset is long-term also includes the previous owner's holding period, as per Section 2(42A).

113

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah · 355 ITR 474 · Section 48 · Section 49(1) · Section 2(42A) · indexed cost of acquisition · gifted assets capital gains · previous owner holding period · long term capital gains · cost inflation index · inherited property

Also reported as

16 Taxmann.com 42204 Taxmann 691

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 45 Section 54 Section 2(47)Section 48 Section 49 Section 54F Section 2(42A)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(42a)section 49 indexed cost of acquisition period of holding section 2(47)cost of improvement section 48 section 54 long term capital gains fair market value long term capital gain section 40a

Judgments citing CIT v. Manjula J. Shah

Late Bhagwandas A Nichlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 4933/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Prem Nichlani On Behalf Of The Ito 17 (1) (2), Late Bhagwandas A. Nichlani, First Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1302/1303, Dalamal Tower, Mumbai - 400020 211, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaepn2256R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinay Sinha (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Sinha (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)

Section 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Prem Nichlani on behalf of The ITO 17 (1) (2), Late Bhagwandas A. Nichlani, First Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1302/1303, Dalamal Tower, Mumbai - 400020 211, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAEPN2256R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vinay Sinha (AR) Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR) Date of Hearing: 11/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated…

Kanchana Bai Chordia, Chennai vs. ITO Cw 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2681/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 49Section 49(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस .गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2680 & 2681/Chny/2018 "नधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2010-11 Vs. Smt.Kanchan Bai Chordia, Income Tax Officer, 18,Ramanuja street, Non Corporate ward 5(1), Sowcarpet,Chennai 600 079. Chennai. [PAN: AAEPC 5069 M] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) : अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.N.Devanathan,Advocate *+यथ) क, ओर से /R…

Kanchan Bai, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2680/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Mr.R.Clement Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 49Section 49(1)

G.Mohan, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Madurai

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

ITA 1386/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1386/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri G. Mohan, The Income Tax Officer, 9H, Marudhupandian Street, V. Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Tirunagar, Madurai – 625 006. Madurai – 625 002. Pan : Allpm 5696 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Hari Govind, JCIT

Section 48Section 50C

…s to be estimated for ascertaining the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 or as on 02.05.2007 when the assessee’s mother expired and the assessee acquired right through will? This issue was examined by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (2013) 355 ITR 474. The Bombay High Court found that the cost of acquisition of the original owner has to be taken into consideration. In other words, the cost of acquisition by the assessee’s mother has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 has to be estimated for the pu…

Income Tax Officer (It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Semine Fazalbhoy, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2111/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2111/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito (It)-2(3)(1) बिधम/ Semine Fazalbhoy 17Th Floor, Room No.1727, Vs. Flat No.9, Kamal Mahal, Air India Building, Nariman Charmichael Road, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021. 400026. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpf6321L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Dr. Narender Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Sanghavi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -56, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54E

…s raised the following grounds: - "1. 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO by relying on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula Shah Vs DCIT reported in 355 ITR 474 (Bom) (2013) when the SLP filed in the said case is pending before SC?" A.Y.2014-15 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO that indexed cost of acquisition should be taken from the year in which previous owner acquired the asset i.e. 01.04.1981 and not from the year in which asse…

ITO (It)- 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Vibha Hutchins, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2973/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh-Ld.DR

…20/02/2018 on following grounds of appeal: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO by relying on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula Shah Vs. DCIT reported in 355 ITR 474 (Bom) (2013) when the SLP filed in the said case is pending before SC. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO that indexed cost of acquisition should be taken from the year in which previous owner acquired the asset i.e. 01.04.1981 and not from the year in which assessee became owner of…

Kaushik D. Mistry, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 2801/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Jain-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria –Ld.DR

Section 2Section 48Section 50CSection 54

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एक-सद" मामला” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2801/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Kaushik D. Mistry Income Tax Officer-20 (2)(3) बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Room No.43, Tarachand Building, Mumbai. 2nd Floor, D.N. Singh Road Vs. Mumbai-400 010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJJPM-0652-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Jain-Ld.AR Revenue by : Shri Cha…

Income Tax Officer (It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Neville Jimmy Daruwalla, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5508/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Ito (It)-2(1)(1) Neville Jimmy Daruwalla Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor C/O S.N. Karani & Co. Ca, C-10A Vs. Air India Building Dhanraj Mahal, Csm Marg Nariman Point Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Zain V.P

Section 143(3)

…ed the following grounds in its appeal. 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO by relying on the judgment of Bombay High court in the case of Manjula Shah Vs DCIT reported in 355 ITR 474 (Bom) (2013) when the SLP filed in the said case is pending before SC.” 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in taking year of acquisition as 1981 for the purpose of computation of LTCG even though the share in property was bequeathed in the year 1999 on the death of his mother. 3. The Appellant prays tha…

I.T.O. (It) - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Mrs. Bina Shaishav Nanavati, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 666/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Asghar Zain V.P, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 49(1)Section 49(1)(iii)

…ong term capital gain at ₹ 2,03,35,122/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah [2013] 355 ITR 474 (Bombay) and directed the AO to re-compute the capital gain by taking the index cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 by observing in Para 3.3. as under:- “Decision I agree with the submission of the appellant that the date of acquisition of the property should be 1981-82 when the first owner purchased it. In terms of section 49(1)(2) of the IT…

Income Tax Officer (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mr.Naushad D Madon, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 572/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Asghar Zain V.P, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ishraq Contractor, AR

Section 143(3)Section 49(1)

…and as on 01.04.2007 for another 1/3 share and accordingly, computed the long term capital gain. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah [2013] 355 ITR 474 (Bombay) directed the AO to re-compute the long term capital gain by taking date of acquisition as on 01.04.1981. The CIT(A) allowed the claim by observing in Para 3.3 as under: - “3.3 I agree with the submission of the appellant that the date of acquisition of the property should be taken 1981-82 when the first owner purchased it. In terms of s…

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Lal Lokumal Chellaram, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6853/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer (It)-2(1)(1) Shri Sham Lokumal Chellaram Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor 629, Gazdar House Vs. Air India Building 3Rd Floor, J. Shankar Seth Marg Nariman Pointmumbai 400021 Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400002 Pan – Aajpc8506E Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer (It)-2(1)(1) Shri Lal Lokumal Chellaram Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor 629, Gazdar House Vs. Air India Building 3Rd Floor, J. Shankar Seth Marg Nariman Pointmumbai 400021 Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400002 Pan – Aajpc8506E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev S KesarwaniFor Respondent: None

Section 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Income Tax Officer (IT)-2(1)(1) Shri Sham Lokumal Chellaram Room No. 1724, 17th Floor 629, Gazdar House Vs. Air India Building 3rd Floor, J. Shankar Seth Marg Nariman PointMumbai 400021 Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400002 PAN – AAJPC8506E Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer (IT)-2(1)(1) Shri Lal Lokumal Chellaram Room No. 1724, 17th Floor 629, Gazdar House Vs. Air India Building 3rd Floor, J. Shankar Seth Marg Nariman PointMumbai 400021 Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400002 PAN – AAJPC8506E…

Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sham Lokumal Chellaram, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6852/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev S KesarwaniFor Respondent: None

Section 48

ITO, Ward-29(3), Kolkata vs. Smt. Indrani Basu Mallick, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1926/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No.1926/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Section 1Section 250Section 49

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.1926/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata...............…………………………………………Appellant Vs. Smt. Indrani Basu Mallick..........................................……….............…...Respondent [PAN : AMPPB 8059 H ] Appearances by: Shri C. J. Singh, Sr. DR, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 18th, 2019 Date of pronouncing the orde…

I.T.O. (International Taxation) - 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Smt. Trupti Deepak Sanghani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 1069/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 54

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri R.C. Sharma (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1069/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) ITO(IT)-4(2)(1) Smt. Trupti Deepak Sanghani Vs. 17th Floor C/o. CM Gabhawala & Co., Room No. 1728 42, Nanik Niwas, 30 Air India Building Dr. D.D. Sathe Marg, Girgaon Nariman Point Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : FENPS9140R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Biren Gabhawala Department by Shri Nishant Somaiya Date of Hearing 27.2.2019 Date of Pronouncement 28.2.2019 O R D E R Per R.C. Sharma (AM) : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue agai…

Income Tax Officer (It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Psalm Soli Dastur, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6428/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DRFor Respondent: Subhash Shetty – Ld. AR

Section 143(3)

…lm Soli Dastur Assessment Year :2014-15 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO by relying on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula Shah Vs DCIT reported in 355 ITR 474( Bom) (2013) when the SLP filed in the said case is pending before SC." 2. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.ClT(A) erred in directing the AO that indexed cost of acquisition should be taken from the year in which previous owner acquired the asset i.e. 01/04/1981 and not from the year in which assessee became owner of…

Income Tax Officer (It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Karl Jimmy Daruwalla, Mumbai

ITA 5507/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5507/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarijine

Section 48Section 49

…r. 6. Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the department relied upon the orders passed by the AO and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO by relying on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula Shah Vs DCIT reported in 355 ITR 474 (Bom) (2013) when the SLP filed in the said case is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was further argued that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in taking year of acquisition as 1981 for the purpose of computation of LTCG even though the share in property was bequeathed in the year 1999 on the death of his mother. 5 I.T.A. No. 5507/Mum/2017 Shri Kar…

ACIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Deepa Vijay, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1929/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Ms.Bharathi Krishnaprasad

Section 2Section 49(1)(ii)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी धु"वु आर.एल. रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1929/Chny/2018 $नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of – Smt.Deepa Vijay, Income Tax, C-4, Golden Schonburn Corporate Circle-4(1), Apartments, No.29, Cenotaph Road, 2nd Lane, Chennai. Chennai-600 028. [PAN: ACJPV 8425 H] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) : Mr.S.Bharath, CIT Department by Assessee by…

S Anusuiya, Madurai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 1 (1), Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1698/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Salendra Mamidi,CIT,D.R

Section 263

…al may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. It was a submission that the issue in the appeal was squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjula J.Shah reported in [2013] 355 ITR 474(Bom). It was a submission that the assessee had sold a house property on 03.01.2007 for a consideration of `46,46,000/- and had purchased a house property for `25,00,000/- on 18.01.2007. It was a submission that the assessee had received 50% share in the said property by “Dhana ITA Nos.1698 &1459/Chny/18 :- 5 -: Settlement” from her husband…

S.Anusiya, Madurai vs. ITO Ward III(1)II/C), Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1459/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Salendra Mamidi,CIT,D.R

Section 263

Nitul B Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 5756/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.5756/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nitul B. Shah Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1) बनाम/ 101, Kusum Kunj, 1St Floor 3Rdfloor, Piramal Chambers 9Th& 10Th Road, Khar(W) Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 052 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ataps-0054-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Paresh Shaparia, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Asghar Zain VP , Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 49(1)Section 54E

…fies the entire sale consideration reflected by the assessee against the sale of property. 6. While arriving at the above conclusion we draw strength from the decision of jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Manjula J.Shah [355 ITR 474] wherein the Hon’ble 6 Nitul B. Shah Assessment Year-2009-10 Court, on similar facts and circumstances, have made the following observations:- “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 Inflatio…