Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 80P(2)(a)(i), Section 80P(2)(d), Section 143(3), Section 80P, Section 147, Section 80P(2).

CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.?

192 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (389 ITR 68), spanning 2017 to 2026.

389 ITR 68High Court2016#489 most cited

What is CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. authority for?

Income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to its core activities and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

192

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. · Section 80P · Section 80P(2)(a)(i) · cooperative society deduction · income from surplus funds · short term deposits interest · securities income · not eligible for exemption · attributable to business · banking activities

Also reported as

77 Taxmann.com 308245 Taxmann 125

Sections most often in play

Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 143(3)Section 80P Section 147 Section 80P(2)Section 144 Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 80(p)(2)(d)revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous section 80p(2)(a)section 80p(2)(a)(i)malabar industrial section 80p(2)section 80p(2)(d)section 80p erroneous and prejudicial eligible business section 50c

Judgments citing CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.

Nirmiti Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Nasik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 442/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.442/Pun/2022

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

Section 80P(2)(a)

…TR 578 (Guj.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mantola Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Vs. CIT 50 taxmann.com 278, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. 389 ITR 68 and the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income arising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot be attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the A…

Kolhapur Sahakari Majur and Hamal Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1138/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1138/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kolhapur Sahakari Majur Vs. Ito, Ward- 2(1) & Hamal Sanstha Kolhapur. Maryadit, Masjid Complex, 2Nd Floor, Office No.14, Hamal Bhavan, 439-E Ward, Station Road, Shahupuri, Kolhapur- 416001. Pan : Aaaap0326R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & By Order Of The Hon'Ble Tribunal 'A' Bench Pune In Ita No. 486/Pun/2012 For A. Y. 2012-13 Which Decision Was Rendered In Favour Of The Assessee Now The Issue Is A 'Covered' In Favour Of The Assessee. Following The Hon'Ble Tribunal Order (Supra) The Deduction Of 82,78,245/- Be Allowed To The Appellant.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)

…R 578 (Guj.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mantola Co- operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Vs. CIT 50 taxmann.com 278, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. 389 ITR 68 and the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income arising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot be attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the A…

M/S. Jan Kalyan Nagri Sahakari Pat.Limited Sanstha, Parbhani vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - Parbhani, Parbhani

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

ITA 825/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jan Kalyan Nagri Vs. Ito, Ward- Parbhani, Sahakari Pat. Limited Sanstha, Parbhani. Sawarkar Chowk, Vidya Nagar, Parbhani-431401. Pan : Aaaaj2292G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Revenue By : Shri Hitendra B. Ninawe Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Aurangabad (‘The Pcit’) Dated 28.03.2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Learned Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Setting Aside The Assessment Order, Directing The Ao To Pass Fresh Order After Verification When The Ld Ao Had Applied His Mind After Sufficient Inquiries & Examined The Issue In The Original Assessment Proceedings In Respect Of Interest Income & Granted Deduction U/S 80P. 2. The Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Decision Of Supreme Court In Case Of Totgars Cooperative Sales

For Respondent: Shri Hitendra B. Ninawe

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S. Anand Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Nashik

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1245/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Anand Nagari Sahakari Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Patsanshta Maryadit Nashik Near Jain Bhavan, Artillery Centre Road, Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101 Pan : Aaala0059M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…TR 578 (Guj.), the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mantola Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Vs. CIT 50 taxmann.com 278, the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. 389 ITR 68 and the Hon‟ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income arising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot be attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the A…

Kavita Polymers, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 52/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.52/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kavita Polymers, Vs. Acit, Central Circle- S-196, Midc, Bhosari, 2(2), Pune. Pune- 411026. Pan : Aadfk1774G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 12, Pune’S Order Dated 28.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-12/10475/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Making Section 50C Addition Of Long & Short Term Capital Gains Amounting

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.52/PUN/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kavita Polymers, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle- S-196, MIDC, Bhosari, 2(2), Pune. Pune- 411026. PAN : AADFK1774G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 13.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)- 12, Pune’s order dated 28.10.2019 passed…

Bhavana Shashikant Ghone, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 12(2), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 839/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.839/Pun/2018 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.839/PUN/2018 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mrs. Bhavana Shashikant Ghone, CTS No.576, Malati Balwant Apartment, Ramanbaug Chowk, Narayan Peth, Pune- 411 030. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AEVPG4868D बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent ITO, Ward 12(2), Pune Assessee by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022…

Ivor D'Mello (Legal Heir of Late Ettie B. D'Mello), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 4470/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Vipul B. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi

Section 50CSection 54E

…we note that the transaction in question regarding plot A was only transfer of development rights and therefore Section 50C of the Act is not attracted as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estate (P.) Ltd. (2017) 389 ITR 68 (Bom). “1. Smt. Kishori Sharad Gaitonde v. ITO — {I.T.A. No. 1561/M /09; Order dated 27.11.2009}. Tribunal held that ‘It is a trite law that the legal fiction cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is enacted. Section 50C embodies the legal fiction by which the value assessed by the stamp duty authorities is considered as full value of…

Rajarshi Shahu Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 609/PUN/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.609/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajarshi Shahu Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolhapur. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., A/P. Murgud, Tal. Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur-416219. Pan : Aaaar1341Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By None : Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi’S Order Dated 23.09.2021 Passed In Case No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1035827237(1) Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte.

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

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

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.CIT-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. PAN: ADSPB2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Revenue by : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22nd March, 2021 of the PCIT, Delhi-12, passed u/s 263 of the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Badve Engineering Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2096/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2096/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2096/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 ACIT, Circle-1, Vs. M/s. Badve Engineering Ltd., Aurangabad P.No.D-39, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431 136 PAN : AAACB9378F Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue by Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of hearing 21-10-2021 Date of pronouncement 21-10-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad on 23…

M/S. Mukesh Gopaldas Dattani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5644/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234BSection 50C

…eing land or building or both and are not applicable in case of transfer of leasehold rights in land & buildings. The said proposition is duly supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd. (77 Taxmann.com 308 dated 24/10/2016) wherein Hon’ble Court has declined to admit the question raised by the revenue. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in V.S.Chandrashekhar V/s ACIT (ITA No. 70 of 2015 dated 02/02/2021). Similar is the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Atul G. Puranik V/s ITO (11 Taxmann.com 92 dated 13/05/2011). This bein…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1455/MUM/2016[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Daniel, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

…w as has been held in the following cases. a. Berger Paints India Ltd v. C1T [266 ITR 99, 104 (SC)]. [Page 538-554 of PB No. 4] b. UOI v. Satish Pannalal Shah [249 ITR 221, 222 (SC)]. [Page 555-556 of PB No. 4] c. CIT v. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt Ltd [389 ITR 68, 69 (Bom.)]. [Page 557-559 of PB No. 4] 37. On perusal of the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and Coordinate benches of Tribunal in case of the family members of the appellant, we are of the view that the relief has been rightly granted by the Ld. CIT(A). We ,therefore , respectfully following Smt. Rina S. Mehta the findings of the Tribunal in cas…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(1) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1367/MUM/2016[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Daniel, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

Dharampal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1946/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1946/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Dharampal Brothers Pvt. Dcit-9(3)(1) Room No.215, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Vs. Mehra Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Compound, Sakinaka, Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400072. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacd4297R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shekar Gupta Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 50C Do Not Apply To A Leasehold Land. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Decision Of The Bombay High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P) Ltd. 389 Itr 68 (Bombay) Wherein The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court Held That Section 50C Does Not Apply To Leasehold Land. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.40,87,381/- As Short Term Capital Gain & Rs.1,65,91,485/- As Long Term Capital Gains.”

For Appellant: Shri Shekar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 50C

…eal: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 50C do not apply to a leasehold land. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Greenfield Hotels and Estates (P) Ltd. 389 ITR 68 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that section 50C does not apply to leasehold land. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of an amount of Rs.40,87,381/- as short term capital gain and Rs.1,65,91,485/- as long term capital gains.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the as…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai vs. Usv Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…case where only leasehold rights are assigned. In this context reliance is placed by him on the decision in Kancast (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 1265/PN/2011) dated 19 January 2015 (Pune Trib.); Heatex Products Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 270/2014) dated 26 July 2016; Greenfied (389 ITR 68) (Bom HC) ; Everest Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 815/M/2017) dated 15 September 2017 (Mumbai-Trib.) ; Atul Puranik (132 ITD 499) (Mum Trib.); Farid Gulmohamed (46 CCH 300) (Mum). On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant ca…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai vs. Usv Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4914/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

V.S. Chandrashekar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the first substantial question of law is

ITA/70/2015HC Karnataka02 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 50C

…on SESHASAYEE STEELS P. LTD. V. ACIT (2020) 421 ITR 46 (SC), SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. V. STATE OF HARYANA [2012] 340 ITR 1 (SC), GOBIND RAM V. GIAN CHAND, (2000) 7 SCC 548 AT PAGE 550, CIT V. GREENFIELD HOTELS & ESTATES (P.) LTD. [2016] 389 ITR 68 (BOMBAY), ITO V. CH. ATCHAIAH [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC) & PCIT V. IND SING DEVELOPERS (P.) LTD. [2016] 239 TAXMAN 350 (KARNATAKA), ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MADAN LAL AHUJA [1982] 136 ITR 640 (ALLAHABAD), 7. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the finding recorded with respect to the cost of 11 acquisition…

Radharaman Constructions, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1582/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Radharaman Constructions Asst. Cit, Circle – 19(3), Ground Floor, Shri Kunj, Mumbai 3A Altamount Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 026

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: 27.10.2020

Section 154Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…d available to the assessee and such transfer of development rights does not establish the case of the Revenue that it amounts of transfer of land or building or both." 21. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 68 (Bom), it was held that Section 50C will not be applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. 22. Decision relied by the CIT (A) is not relevant to the present case as there is no transfer of Development Agreement. Here is a Sale Agreement wherein assessee is a confirming party. 23. In view of the…

Khazan Singh Anand, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 40(5), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5837/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Khazan Singh Anand, Vs. Ito, Kothi No. 2, Gf Kailash Enclave, Ward-40(5), Pitampura, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaapa1872A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50C

…oordinate bench in case of Noida Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 165/Del/2020 dated 12.10.2020. However, on careful perusal of the fact it is apparent that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in 389 ITR 68 CIT Vs. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the coordinate bench holding that provisions of section 50C will not be applicable while computing the capital gain on transfer of leasehold rights in land and plot. The issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coord…

Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 6010/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14)

For Appellant: ShriSubodhFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14) ITO 15(3)(3), Sankalpan Infrastructure R. No. 480, 4th floor, Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ 304, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Hiranandani Business Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Park, Powai, Mumbai- 400 076 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAICS6802P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : ShriSubodh Ratnaparkhi, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख…