CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia

Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, The Income Tax Officer 287, Dharamraj Gully, Ward-14(3)(2), बनाम/ M.J. Market, Earnest House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agdpj5258A

…duly invested by the assessee, it can be concluded that substantial compliance was made by the assessee of the provisions of the law by making required investment for purchasing the residential house. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia (216 ITR 376)(Bom.) held that the assessee should have invested substantial amount within two years after the date of sale of the property. In the instant case, the assessee made complete investment with earlier two developer i.e. M/s Rohan developers and S.M. Enterprises, wherein, due to various reasons, the money was returned and thereafter the amount of Rs…

Kailash S. Panveli, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

…n of flat was a formality. Accordingly he contended that the assessees should be allowed deduction u/s 54 of the Act on the cost of new flat. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case law in support of his contentions. (a) CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla J B Wadia (216 ITR 376)(Bom) (b) Pr. Cit Vs. C.Gopalaswamy (2016)(384 ITR 307)(Kar) (c) Muthuletchumi Janardanan Vs, DCIT (2012)(34 CCH 0193)(Cochin) 5 Shri Kailash S. Panveli & Shri Pratap Shankar Panveli 12. On the contrary, the Ld D.R supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Since the value of new flat is considered as part of sale consideration of pr…

DCIT 28(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Raghunath B Kathuria, Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…(A) and no contrary judgement has been brought to our knowledge to contradict the view taken by the Ld.CIT(A). In our considered views, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Hilla JB Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bom). We do not find any justification to make any interference in the order of the Ld.CIT(A), and therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue are 6 I.T.A. No.277/Mum/2015 dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on this 24th day of Aug, 2016. sd/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT ME…

Jayantilal Meghji Pokar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…essee paid for instalment, even though possession of flat was delivered on a later date, the capital gain arising from sale of flat was a long term capital gain. Similar view has been taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Hilla J.B.Wadia, 216 ITR 376. 6. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any merit in the action of lower authorities in not taking cognizance to the allotment letter issued to the assessee duly mentioning the flat number, area and other descriptions and for which due instalments was paid. Accordingly, we direct the AO to compute the capital gain as long…

ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Jitendra A Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 2548/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Ito-16(1)(4), Shri Jitendra A. Shah, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Flat No. 100, 10Th Floor, Vs. Tardeo Road, Girnar Bldg., 69, Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-40 034 C.O. No. 127/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of I.Ta No. 2548/Mum/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Jitendra A. Shah, The Ito-16(1)(4), बनाम/ Flat No. 100, 10Th Floor, Matru Mandir, Vs. Girnar Bldg., 69, Tardeo Road, Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-40 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aapps 9941J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Ashish Heliwal Shri Ashok Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

…was ultimately sold in December, 2009, more than 36 months had elapsed giving rise to Long Term Capital Gain. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hilla J.B. Wadia (216 ITR 376) and taking note of the CBDT Circular No. 495 dated 22.9.1987 held that the period of holding is more than 36 months , therefore the gain is to be computed as Long Term Capital Gain. 6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the case law relied on by the Ld. Counsel. In this case, the assessee sold h…

Pravin L. Manania, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

…ready been considered and allowed by the assessee. The Ld. AR also contended that even on merits, the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act was to be allowed in view of the following decisions:- (i) L N Nagda (211 ITR 804) (Bom) (ii) Hilla Wadia (216 ITR 376) (Bom) (iii) Madhu Kaul (363 ITR 54) (P & H) (iv) Seetha Subramanian (59 ITD 94) (Mad) The Ld. AR contends that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act ought to be cancelled. 5 Assessment Year: 2007-08 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR emphatically supported the impugned order of the Ld. CIT. It was submitted that a…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai vs. Prannath Talwar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am

…that the 7 Shri Prannath Talwar flat will be handed over within a period of three years the assessee will qualify as per the provisions for construction under section 54 of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Mrs. Hilla J. B. Wadia vs. CIT 216 ITR 376 it was held that delivery of possession is only a formally. More precisely, it was held as under: - "Under the terms of the agreement of the assessee with the society, the assessee obtained a right to take possession of a specific flat of the society. The assessee had no right to cancel the agreement or claim any damages. Thus, the assessee acqu…