CIT v. Ram Gopal

372 ITR 498High Court2015#10241 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 536

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 54Section 54B

Judgments citing CIT v. Ram Gopal

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

…provisions of the Act:- 1. Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [2014] 365 ITR 389/225 Taxman 239/46 taxmann.com 300 (SC) 2. CIT. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Tasman 541 (SC) 3. CIT. K. Jelani Basha [2002] 256 ITR 282/122 Taxman 509 (Mad) 4. CIT v. Ram Gopal (2015) 372 ITR 498/230 Taxman 205/55 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi) 5. Balraj V C77 [2002] 254 ITR 22/123 Tasman 290 (Delhi) 6. CIT. R.1. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727/108 Tasman 227 (Delhi) 7. CIT v. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda, [1995] 211 ITR 804/78 Taxman 219 (Bom.) 8. CIT v. Shahajada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 311 (AP) 9. S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. DIT [IT Appeal…

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5338/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 251Section 254Section 2BSection 54BSection 56

…of agricultural land at Village Anangpur, Distt. Faridabad through Agreement to Sell (with full payment), without getting the registered sale deed, kind attention of this Hon'ble Bench is invited towards the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ram Gopal (372 ITR 498).” 8. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The reasons for declining the exemption u/s 54B by the ld CIT(A) are as under:- • It is not in dispute that the assessee sold land at Punjab, Khor which resulted in taxable capital gains. • The assessee has purchased land at Village Anangpur, Distt. F…

MUKESH SOHANRAJ VARDHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4255/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Rathi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Akhtar H. Ansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Sohanraj Vardhan, Income Tax Officer-17(2)(4), 101, Commerce House, 140, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Nagindas Master Road, Fort, 400020. Mumbai-400023. PAN No. AAAPV3856F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Shubham Rathi, AR Revenue by : Mr. Akhtar H. Ansari, DR Last Date of Hearing : 18/08/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28/08/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year…

ITO 16(2), MUMBAI vs. ASHWIN S. BHALEKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6822/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar, DRFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स ुंह, न्याययक दस्य एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रिान लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 6822/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) The Asst. Commissioner of Ashwin. S. Bhalekar Income Tax, Central Circle Beamon Chambers, 16(2), Room No. 440, 4 th Nagindas Master Road, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. AEBPB5505Q अपील…

ELEGANT INFRAWORLD (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4334/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar &For Respondent: Ms. Shaveta Nakra Dutta, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)Section 45Section 48

…anded over, the transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) and (vi) was complete. The parties to the agreement are not challenging the genuineness of the agreements.” (iv) Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-XVI vs. Ram Gopal (2015) 372 ITR 498 (Del.). in which it was held as under :  This Court, in the decision as Gulshan Malik v. CIT [2014] 223 Taxman 243/43 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi) had the occasion 12 ITA.No.4334/Del./2018 M/s. Elegant Infraworld (P) Ltd., New Delhi. to, consider what amounted to acquisition of a capital asset - though in the context of a claim that capital gains h…

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

…e view that the Tribunal took the correct view. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.” 20 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal 2.9. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Ram Gopal (372 ITR 498)(Del.) held that:- ■ This Court, in the decision as Gulshan Malik v. CIT [2014] 223 Taxman 243/43 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi) had the occasion to, consider what amounted to acquisition of a capital asset - though in the context of a claim that capital gains had accrued due to the sale of the property. The Court was of the opinion that 'capital asset…

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

…the above reasons we are of the view that the Tribunal took the correct view. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.” 2.9. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Ram Gopal (372 ITR 498)(Del.) held that:- ■ This Court, in the decision as Gulshan Malik v. CIT [2014] 223 Taxman 243/43 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi) had the occasion to, consider what amounted to acquisition of a capital asset - though in the context of a claim that capital gains had accrued due to the sale of the property. The Court was of the opinion that 'capital asset…

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. PRIYA RAVI GEHI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3974/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kapasi (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 112Section 254(1)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3974/Mum/2016 for Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT-21(2) Smt. Priya Ravi Gehi, Room No. 115, 1st Floor, Flat No.21, Triveni Apartments, Piramal Chambers, Vs. 220, Cadel Road, Mahim (W), Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400016. PAN: AEPPG5062H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pradeep Kapasi (AR) Revenue by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR) Date of hearing : 02.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDI…

SHRI. RAJESH ATALRAM RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 23(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3111/MUM/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Atalram Rupani Dcit Circle -23(3) 6Th Floor, Makhija Chamber, Vs. Matru Mandir, 196 Turnover Road, Bandra Grant Road, (W), Mumbai400007 Mumbai-400050 Pan No. Afapr9279R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S. M. Makhija, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S. M. Makhija, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…bai in ITA No. 7876/Mum/2010 dated 10.09.2014), ACIT vs. Smt. Vandana Rana Ray (ITAT- Bench ‘F’ Mumbai in ITAT No. 6173/Mum/2011 dated 07.11.2012), Smt. Meena A. Hemnani, Mumbai vs. ITO (I.T.), Mumbai (ITA No. 5998/Mum/2010 dated 09.01.2011), CIT v. Ram Gopal 372 ITR 498 (Del), Jagdish Chander Malhotra v. ITO 62 TTJ 314. 6. Per contra, the ld. D.R submits that (i) there was no valid agreement for purchase of the flat entered into by the appellant with the builder, (ii) the letter of communication from the builder being described by the appellant as allotment letter was a letter communicating the provisional Shri…

SHRI PRAKASH PILLAI,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2552/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…(A) is clearly in error in holding that the rights created as a result of banakhat (i.e. agreement to sell) would not be capital gains, and that a sale deed of the related property is sine qua non for the said purpose. In the case of CIT vs. Ram Gopal [(2015) 372 ITR 498 (Del)], Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed as follows:- “5. This Court, in the decision reported as Gulshan Malik v. CIT [2014] 223 Taxman 243/43 taxmann.com 200 had the occasion to, inter alia, consider what amounted to acquisition of a capital asset - though in the context of a claim that capital gains had accrued due to the sale of the pro…

S. NARENDRAKUMAR & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 7080/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. S. Narendrakumar & Co., Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Krushal Commercial Income Tax, Complex, Circle 22(2), Vs. G.M. Road, Vashi Railway Station Chembur (W), Complex, Tower No.6, 4Th Floor, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 089 Pan: Aaafs 1245B Navi Mumbai – 400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Neil Philip, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Is Relating To The Taxability Of The Income Gained By The Assessee From Transfer Of The Assessee‟S Right In „5 Office Premises‟ As To Whether The Same Are To Be Assessed Under The Head „Long Term Capital Gains‟ Or As „Income From Other Sources‟. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Had Shown Long Term Capital Gains Of 2 M/S. S. Narendrakumar & Co.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. S. Narendrakumar & Co., Deputy Commissioner of 5th Floor, Krushal Commercial Income Tax, Complex, Circle 22(2), Vs. G.M. Road, Vashi Railway Station Chembur (W), Complex, Tower No.6, 4th Floor, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 089 PAN: AAAFS 1245B Navi Mumbai – 400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Neil Philip, D.R. Date of Hearing : 04.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E…