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

ITO, Chennai vs. Bhaskaran Sunny John George, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1425/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Raghunathan, CA

…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 "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1421/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Nalini Mahadevan Kumaran, The Income Tax Officer, v. Old No.68B, New No.46, International Taxation Ward 1(2), First Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 020. PAN : CQHPK 0155 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Madha…

ITO, Chennai vs. Sunil Philip Stephen, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1424/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Raghunathan, CA

ITO, Chennai vs. Nalini Mahadevan Kumaran, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1421/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Raghunathan, CA

Dr. Francis Rajan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 3/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Sagadevan, JCITFor Respondent: 24.07.2017

Section 148Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54F

…ies acquired by the assessee was by way of 4 settlement deed from the mother of the assessee and therefore for the purpose of indexation, the date of acquisition of the mother has to be adopted as per the ratio laid on in the case Manjula J. Shah reported in 355 ITR 474, however the Ld.AO had erroneously adopted the date of settlement deed as the date of acquisition of the asset for the purpose of indexation. Accordingly the Ld.AR pleaded for granting relief on the issue. On the other hand, the Ld.DR vehemently argued in support of the Orders of the Revenue authorities. 5. I have heard the rival submissions…

Jyothilakshmi Narayanamoorthy, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3074/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3074/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mrs.R.Rajeswari, JCIT

Section 139(4)Section 234BSection 48Section 49(1)

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य के सम! BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3074/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Smt. Jyothilakshmi The Income Tax Officer, Narayanamoorthy, International Taxation-1(2), No.21, Old No.101, 3rd Street, Chennai-600 034. Wallace Garden, Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AADPJ 4527 C] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(यथ&/Respondent) : अपीलाथ& क) ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.T.Banusekar, CA '(यथ…

Madhumal Adiyari Sajeev, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, IRS, JCIT

Section 2Section 48

…see only from the year in which the property came to assessee’s ownership, without considering the period of holding of the previous owner. According to him this was against the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah Shah 355 ITR 474. :- 3 -: Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee 3. having inherited one-fifth share in the subject property on the death of his father on 22.07.2009 and another 1/10th share subsequently, through a settlement deed executed by his mother on 12.05.2011, by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula J.…

ITO, Chennai vs. Raghu Ramadas, Chennai

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

ITA 244/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.244/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: None

Section 48

…ition has to be ascertained on the date on which the property came to the assessee by way of settlement deed. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee by placing his reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Manjula J. Shah (2013) 355 ITR 474. According to the Ld. D.R., the cost indexation has to be made under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. We have considered the submission of Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee received the property by way of settlement deed, otherwise it is known…

N.Bhasker, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3394/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, IRS, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3394/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2013-2014 Shri.N. Bhasker, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.9,Waddels Road, International Taxation Ward I(1), Kilpauk, Chennai-10. Chennai. [PAN AABPB 6775G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Dura…

Sasidhar Malladi, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3390/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3390/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. Shri Sasidhar Malladi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 10/7A, Lalitha Mahal, International Taxation 1(2) Annai Satya Nagar, Main Road, Chennai. Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. [Pan Aqipm 1186F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Durai Pandian, IRS, JCIT

Section 48

…as that the said property was purchased by his mother during financial year 2006-2007 and he had received a share therein through a settlement deed dated 12.10.2012. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah 355 ITR 474, assessee argued before ld. Assessing Officer that cost inflation index had to be computed with reference to the year of purchase of property by his mother. However, ld. Assessing Officer did not accept this contention. According to him, assessee became owner of the property only through the settlement deed dated 12.10.2012, and by virtue of…

Mandar S. Phadke, Mumbai vs. ITO - 32(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5312/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5312/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. Anupama Singla (DR)

Section 48Section 49(1)Section 54

…re available to the previous owner and the assessee steps into the shoes of previous owner for all purposes for the purpose of computation of capital gains. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjula J.Shah 355 ITR 474. The Ld. AR further brought to our notice the error committed by AO in picking correct FMV of the property as per the valuation report dated 06/12/2010. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the stand of lower authorities and contended that capital gains have rightly been computed as per the express provisions of the act. The explanation (iii) to Section…

Uma Kymal, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1906/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1906/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012 - 13 Smt. Uma Kymal, Income Tax Officer, No.5/82, Blue Beach Road, V. International Taxation – 1 (2), Neelangarai, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 041. Pan : Bwqpk5872D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Murali Mohan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, JCIT

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी िड.एस. सु"दर "सह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1906/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012 - 13 Smt. Uma Kymal, Income Tax Officer, No.5/82, Blue Beach Road, v. International Taxation – 1 (2), Neelangarai, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 041. PAN : BWQPK5872D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respond…

Bharathan Anand, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2016AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 48Section 49Section 54

…ement Deed. He invited our attention to Sec.2(42A) for the purpose of date of acquiring the property and Sec.49 for the purpose of computation of capital gains and also relied on hon’ble Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Manula J. Shah reported in 355 ITR 474 and the decision of this Tribunal ITAT ‘A’ Bench in the case of Mustaf Yacob and Panaban Venkataraman. On the other hand, the Ld.DR relied on the lower authority’s Orders. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The assessee has acquired the property from his father by settlement deed and the property was ac…

ACIT 11(3), Mumbai vs. Modern Hospital for Women, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue for Asst

ITA 5924/MUM/2012[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 1996-97

For Appellant: Shri. Suman KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Subhash Chhajed

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 48Section 55

…year 1973 is stood itself at NIL to the assessee as on 01/04/1981. The co-ordinate Bench after taking into consideration the submissions of the parties in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Manjula J Shah[2011] 355 ITR 474 (Bom), dismissed the ground raised in appeal by the revenue and confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 11. In view of the facts of the case and the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Shri. Bhupindra Singh Anand (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in a…

Dr. Sureshmohan, L/H. of Rangamoorthy, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 2238/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2238/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Late Rangamoorthy - Dr. Sureshmohan L/H Of Late Rangamoorthy, The Income Tax Officer, No.6-D, Ved Nivas, V. Non-Corporate Ward 17(1), No.52, Taylors Road, Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 010. Pan : Acspr 0304 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Jayashree, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT

…us owner has to be taken into consideration. This claim of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(Appeals) also confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Referring to the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Manjula J. Shah (2013) 355 ITR 474, the Ld. representative submitted that the cost of acquisition of previous 3 I.T.A. No.2238/Mds/16 owner from whom the property was inherited, has to be taken for the purpose of capital gain. 5. On the contrary, Shri Shiva Srinivas, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the asset was inherited by the assessee only in the year…

Mr. Rajendera Kumar Gollapudi, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2322/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

Section 48

…. Assessee moved in appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but did not meet with any success. 4. Now before us, ld. Authorised Representative strongly assailing the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah 355 ITR 474 submitted that words ‘’asset was held by the assessee‘’ appearing in Explanation to clause (iii) to Sec. 48 of the Act had to be construed in accordance with object of the statute. As per ld. Authorised Representative when the property was acquired by the assessee by gift deed, assessee would be deemed to have held the capital asset from the da…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-23(3), Kolkata vs. Sudip Roy, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed partly

ITA 2864/KOL/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 55A

…oad-block would be created if such property is acquired through Will and would, therefore, have no reference to its actual cost on the date of operation of the Will”. Mr. Murarka has also relied upon a judgment of C.I.T Vs. Manjula J. Shah reported in (2013) 355 ITR 474 (Bom) and referred to paragraphs 21 to 24 of the judgement which are as under:- “21) To accept the contention of the Revenue that the words used in clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 48 of the Act has to be read by ignoring the provisions contained in section 2 of the Act runs counter to the entire scheme of the Act. Section 2 of the Act…

M.Prakash, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1693/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V.Shreekanth, JCIT

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"या"यकसद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी,लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1693/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri M.Prakash, v. The Income Tax Officer, F-4, Jain Anahitha, International Taxation 2(1), No.9, 1st Cross Street, Chennai. Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. PAN : AYGPP9316G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri A.S.Sriraman, Advo…

V.P.Anandhan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.39/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri. Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, IRS, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 48

…rty as on 01.04.1981 and as per the provisions of the section 48 & 49(i) of the Act, the cost of previous owner and holding period has to be considered for indexation and supported with the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjula J.Shah 355 ITR 474 and prayed for the deletion of capital gains. :- 5 -: Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative relied on the 6. order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and vehemently opposed to the submissions of ld. Authorised Representative. 7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decision cited. Th…

Kshitj M Kotak (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6763/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane

Section 271(1)(c)

…uch proposition, he relied upon the decision of the 5 Kshitij M. Kotak (HUF) Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 322 ITR 0158 (SC), and the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Manjula J. Shah, [2011] 355 ITR 474 (Bom.). 5. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted, the assessee had not established the fact that the gold / silver items were acquired prior to 1st April 1981. He submitted, by claiming indexed cost of acquisition, assessee has reduced the long term capital gain, hence, has furnished inaccurate particulars of income…

ACIT 11(2), Mumbai vs. Ajay I.. Thakore, Mumbai

ITA 6917/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/6917 /Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-11(2) Shri Ajay I. Thakore Room No.479, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1416, Dalamal Tower, M.K. Road Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Pan:Aabpt 0802 G आयकर अपील सं./Ita/6602/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Ajay I. Thakore Vs. Acit-11(2) Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M.Murli Assessee By: Shri Ajay Indrajit Thakore सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.25/7/2011 Of The Cit(A)-3 Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed The Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration Raising Various Grounds Of Appeal.Assessee, An Individual Filed His Return Of Income On 20/07/2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.56.22 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act On 21. 12.2010,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2.40 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Indrajit ThakoreFor Respondent: Shri M.Murli

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 254(1)Section 45Section 49Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(a)Section 55(2)(ii)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण," ए” खंडपीठ अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/6917 /Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-11(2) Shri Ajay I. Thakore Room no.479, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1416, Dalamal Tower, M.K. Road Vs. Free Press Journal Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. PAN:AABPT 0802 G आयकर अपील…