CIT v. R. M. Amin

CHETAN H DAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Om Prakash Kant ()

…d legal analysis and in view of the decision of Patna High Court in the case of D.M. Murarilqal Budhia 139 ITR 410 (Pat), the issue has to be decided against the appellant. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Amin 106 ITR 68 (SC) where it was held that but for ITA No.4557/Mum/2010 ITA 4376/Mum/2014 Shri Chetan H Daiya section 46(2), it would not have been possible to charge tax under the head ‘capital gains’ on the money or other assets of the company received by its shareholder on its liquidation. Accordingly, grounds raised are dismissed.” 6. Before us, no submissi…

CHETAN H DAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

…d legal analysis and in view of the decision of Patna High Court in the case of D.M. Murarilqal Budhia 139 ITR 410 (Pat), the issue has to be decided against the appellant. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Amin 106 ITR 68 (SC) where it was held that but for…

CHETAN H DAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Om Prakash Kant ()

…d legal analysis and in view of the decision of Patna High Court in the case of D.M. Murarilqal Budhia 139 ITR 410 (Pat), the issue has to be decided against the appellant. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Amin 106 ITR 68 (SC) where it was held that but for ITA No.4557/Mum/2010 ITA 4376/Mum/2014 Shri Chetan H Daiya section 46(2), it would not have been possible to charge tax under the head ‘capital gains’ on the money or other assets of the company received by its shareholder on its liquidation. Accordingly, grounds raised are dismissed.” 6. Before us, no submissi…

CHETAN H DAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Om Prakash Kant ()

…d legal analysis and in view of the decision of Patna High Court in the case of D.M. Murarilqal Budhia 139 ITR 410 (Pat), the issue has to be decided against the appellant. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Amin 106 ITR 68 (SC) where it was held that but for ITA No.4557/Mum/2010 ITA 4376/Mum/2014 Shri Chetan H Daiya section 46(2), it would not have been possible to charge tax under the head ‘capital gains’ on the money or other assets of the company received by its shareholder on its liquidation. Accordingly, grounds raised are dismissed.” 6. Before us, no submissi…

ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI vs. ZOOM ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

…al loss in his computation of income for A.Y. 2011-12. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of CIT Vs. Jaykrishana Harivallabhdas (231 ITR 108). He further submitted that decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. R.M. Amin (106 ITR 368) is not applicable. He further submitted that decision relied upon by learned Departmental Representative of ITAT Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of Bennett and Coleman & Co. Ltd. (133 ITD 1) is not applicable. 31. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that the assessee is in this case was intending to acquire TV chan…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…uch distribution, division or allotment. According to him, there is no change in this legal position even after the enactment of the definition of " transfer" in s. 2(47) in the 1961 Act. Reference was made to this court's decision in CIT v. R. M. Amin [1977] 106 ITR 368 (SC), where this court has held that no transfer of capital assets within the meaning of s. 119 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . 2(47) of the 1961 Act was involved when a shareholder received money representing his shares on the distributio…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…uch distribution, division or allotment. According to him, there is no change in this legal position even after the enactment of the definition of " transfer" in s. 2(47) in the 1961 Act. Reference was made to this court's decision in CIT v. R. M. Amin [1977] 106 ITR 368 (SC), where this court has held that no transfer of capital assets within the meaning of s. 119 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . 2(47) of the 1961 Act was involved when a shareholder received money representing his shares on the distributio…

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…uch distribution, division or allotment. According to him, there is no change in this legal position even after the enactment of the definition of " transfer" in s. 2(47) in the 1961 Act. Reference was made to this court's decision in CIT v. R. M. Amin [1977] 106 ITR 368 (SC), where this court has held that no transfer of capital assets within the meaning of s. 119 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . 2(47) of the 1961 Act was involved when a shareholder received money representing his shares on the distributio…