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

Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ए,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, vs ACIT, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AACPE9331N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Nandkishor Agrawal राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Satishchandra Rajore…

Smt. Darshan Devi, Kaithal vs. ITO, Kaithal

Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 148Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sh. Parveen Kumar Vs. The ITO M/s Malikpuria Paints Ward-4 Railway Road, Kaithal Kaithal PAN No. ABFPK5832N Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sh. Parveen Kumar Vs. The ITO L/H Late Smt. Darshana Devi Ward-4 W/o Sh. Purshotam Dass, Kaithal 486/6 Chaudharian Mohalla Bada Katehra, Kaithal PAN No. AKNPJ1824L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Deepak Aggarwal Revenue By : Smt. Chandrakanta Date of hearing : 14/08/2018 Date of Pronouncement…

Parveen Kumar, Kaithal vs. ITO, Kaithal

Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 407/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

Section 148Section 54

Mandar S. Phadke, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4603/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Mandar S. Phadke Vs. The Income Tax Officers, 601, Kaustubh, 7, Bunglow Ward 32(2)(3) Colony, Nr. Sailee Mumbai International School, Gorai Road, Borivalie (W) Mumbai – 400 091 Pan/Gir No. Aaqpp8901R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 49

…mprovement being Rs.1,23,040/-as per the valuation report, though available to the assessee, has not been granted to the assessee. With these observations, we further find that our jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjula J.Shah 355 ITR 474, in 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 (Hi) 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 the asset was held by the assess…

ITO (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nita Narendra Mulani, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 243/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanito (It)-3(2)(1), Smt. Nita Narendra Mulani R. No. 104, Scindia House, C/O Hajeetsingh Bubber, Ballard Pier, Vs. Cci Project Pvt. Ltd. 6, Mumbai-38. Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Laxmi Building, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Atqpm0689Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi (Cit-Dr) Respondent By : Shri Hitesh Trivedi (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Jangpangi (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri Hitesh Trivedi (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 254(1)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO (IT)-3(2)(1), Smt. Nita Narendra Mulani R. No. 104, Scindia House, C/o Hajeetsingh Bubber, Ballard Pier, Vs. CCI Project Pvt. Ltd. 6, Mumbai-38. Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Laxmi Building, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. PAN: ATQPM0689Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri N.S. Jangpangi (CIT-DR) Respondent by : Shri Hitesh Trivedi (AR) Date of Hearing : 16.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL M…

Kusum Mohta, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-44(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1334/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kusum Mohta............................…..…….……………………..……………………………………………….…..Appellant 5/2, Ram Krishna Lane Bagbazar Kolkata – 700 003 [Pan : Ahmpm 9143 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(3), Kolkata.................................……...…………………………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vikas Sharma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 14Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 20Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 250Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kusum Mohta............................…..…….……………………..……………………………………………….…..Appellant 5/2, Ram Krishna Lane Bagbazar Kolkata – 700 003 [PAN : AHMPM 9143 K] Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(3), Kolkata.................................……...…………………………..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Vikas Sharma, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing :…

ITO (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kershaw Burjor Colabawalla, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 948/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.948/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Income Tax Officer Kershaw Burjor Colabawalla (International Taxation)-2(1)(1) A3, Ben Nevis बनाम/ Room No.1724, 17Th Floor Bhulabhai Desai Road Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Point Breach Candy Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 0036 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapc-5583-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

…assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 24/10/2016 wherein Ld. CIT(A), 3 Kershaw Burjor Colabawalla Assessment Year-2012-13 relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Manjula V. Shah Vs DCIT [355 ITR 474] concurred with the stand of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. The Ld. DR has supported the stand of Ld. AO. 4. Upon due consideration, we find that the issue under hand, at present, stood squarely covered in assessee’s favour by the cited judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Although, it is observed that Spec…

ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5644/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/O 17Th Floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. Cas. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.D. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Acapg8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit (Dr) Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018. Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’]And Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Read As Under: 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction Under Section 54 For Investment Of Capital Gain In Purchase Of New Residential House In Australia & Thus Allowing The Shifting

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO-(IT)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/o 17th floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. CAS. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.d. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 PAN No. ACAPG8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR) Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, AR Date of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date of pronouncement: 27/06/2018. ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the…

ITO (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Suresh George Mathai, Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 6571/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajendra, Am & Sri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Apporva R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Garodia, DR

Section 253Section 48Section 49(1)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54ESection 55(2)(b)

…e of computing the indexed cost of acquisition which is dealt with in Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Act. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by holding that the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula J. Shah [355 ITR 474 (Bom)] was applicable in the present case without appreciating that this decision was based on a purposive interpretation of the words 'asset was held by the assessee' as mentioned in para 19 of the Order while Hon'ble Bombay High Court have now held in the case of M/s Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. No.871 of 2014)…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Tajinder Singh, Ludhiana

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. Sh.Tajinder Singh, Circle-6, 1021-Basant City, Part-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Addps7027D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 49(1)(ii)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The D.C.I.T., Vs. Sh.Tajinder Singh, Circle-6, 1021-Basant City, Part-II, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: ADDPS7027D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR Respondent by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Date of hearing : 21.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana dated 26.10.2016 relating to…

ITO, Non-Corporate Ward -3(1), Chennai vs. Ananya Srikanth, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2115/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: 04.04.2018For Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54Section 54F

…ation from the period of holding of the asset by the previous owner since the assessee had acquired the property from her father by way of settlement deed following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT vs. Manjula J Shah reported in 355 ITR 474. 3. Assessee’s Cross Objection:- The assessee has raised three grounds in its cross objection however the cruxes of the issues are that:- CO No.175/Chny/2017 (i) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not granting exemption U/s.54 of the Act. (ii) The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly allowed the alternative claim of the assessee by granting deduction U/s.54F of the…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Kekin Sheth, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5647/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blea.C.I.T. – 19(2) V. Kekin Sheth R.No.207, Matru Mandir 302, Pleasant Park, Mumbai – 400 007 65, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pooja Swaroop

Section 2Section 48

…ontended that since he has inherited the property from his father which was purchased in the year 1967 the assessee should get indexation of the property from 1981 in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjula J. Shah [355 ITR 474]. However, the Assessing Officer observing that the decision of the Bombay High Court is not accepted by the Department, worked out the indexation from the F.Y. 1996 instead of 1981. On appeal 3 Kekin Sheth the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjul…

Thulasi Narayanamurthy, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 3103/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु"आर. एलरे"डी, "या"यक सद"यएवं, "ी एस जयरामनलेखा सद"य समक् BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 3103/Chny/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Thulasi Narayanamurthy, The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, Old No. 10, 3rd Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -3(5), Wallace Garden, Chennai 600 034. Chennai – 600 006. [PAN: ABYPN 3072E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ(/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. T. Banusekar, CA Revenue by : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JC…

Vasumathi Ashok, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-3(5), Chennai

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

ITA 2157/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2157/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Vasumathi Ashok, E-6, Adhisri Apartments, The Income Tax Officer, 32/33, Kothari Road, V. Non Corporate Ward 3(5), Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aespv 7330 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 54Section 54F

…her submitted that while computing fair market value, the Assessing Officer has taken the value on the date on which the property was inherited by the assessee from her husband. Placing reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (355 ITR 474), the 3 I.T.A. No.2157/Mds/17 Ld.counsel submitted that when the property was inherited, the cost of the property in the hands of the original owner has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer is not justified in taking the cost of the asset as on the date of inheritance. 4. We heard Shri…

ITO (It) 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Manmohan Sadanand Bhatkal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed, as above

ITA 5449/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negithe Ito (It)-1(2)(1), Room No.118, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M.Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. ...... Appellant Vs. Manmohan Sadanand Bhatkal, C-1, Sarathi, Khira Nagar, Sv Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai 400 054 Pan: Aahpb1743 J .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Manmohan S. Bhatkal(Assessee )For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(3)

…e Assessing Officer at Rs.2,88,79,322/- as against Rs. Rs.2,12,02,674/- worked out by the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that the action of the Assessing Officer was contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah, 355 ITR 474 (Bom) and, therefore, he set-aside the action of the Assessing Officer and restored the determination of capital gains as done by the assessee. Against such a decision of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Though the Ground of appeal canvassed by the Revenue is in support of the action of the Assessing Officer but there is no rebu…

ITO, Chennai vs. Malathi Ramji, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 298/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.298/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Malathi Ramji, International Taxation – 2(1), V. 2B, Coral Sands, New No.26, No.16, Greams Road, 4Th Floor, Beach Road, Kalakshetra Colony, Bsnl Building, Tower – I, Chennai - 600 090. Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aabpr 4351 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Maya J. Nichane, Advocate

…erited the property, whether the market value has to be taken on the date of inheritance or the value of asset in the hands of the original owner, namely, the mother of the assessee. This issue was considered by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Manjula J. Shah 355 ITR 474. The Bombay High Court found that the value of the property in the hands of the previous owner, namely, mother of the assessee has to be taken into consideration. The CIT(Appeals), in fact followed the judgment of Bombay High Court. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly…

ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Narendra R. Kenia (HUF), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 556/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.A. KhanFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Shah

Section 143(3)

…mbai dated 29.03.2014 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Narendra R. Kenia (HUF) 2. At the time of hearing, it was a common point between the parties that the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula Shah, 355 ITR 474 (Bom.), which has been relied upon by the CIT(A) for allowing the relief to the assessee, continues to hold the field and has not been altered by any higher authority and, therefore, the decision of the CIT(A) deserves to be affirmed. So however, in order to impart completeness to the order, the following discussion is relevant. 3. The responden…

Shri Madhukumaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 2835/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Palanichamy, JCIT

Section 48

…e first property and 1985 has the base year for second property. When the matter reached ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), he held in favour of the assessee relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J.Shah, 355 ITR 474. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the land having given to the assessee by virtue of gifts, period of holding of the previous owner was also to be included for indexing the cost of acquisition. 4. Now before us, ld. Departmental Representative assailing the view taken by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted…

ITO, Chennai vs. Shri Habibullah Inayathullah, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2611/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DRFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 48Section 54

…by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) agreed with the contention of ld.A.R by placing reliance on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. MANJULA J. SHAH in [2013] 355 ITR 474 (Bom). Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. According to ld.A.R, holding period of the assessee shall be considered from the year assessee’s father acquired the property. According to the AO, the financial year 1999-2000 was the first year…

Asst CIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Sridhar Vellala, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1031/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhasstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 34(3), Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, C-12, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 050 ...... Appellant Vs. Shri Sridhar Vellala, Bunglow No.37, Pali Vilage, 16Th Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400 050. Pan: Afypv 9267R .... Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)

…granted the benefit of indexation from the year 2011, when assessee actually acquired the property in his name. The CIT(A) has upheld the stand of the assessee by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah, 355 ITR 474 (Bom). Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. From the orders of authorities below, it is quite clear that assessee acquired the rights in the property on inheritance and settlement with the other family members and, hence, the period of holding of the previous holders is to be included while allowing the benefit o…