CIT v. S.R. Jeyashankar

373 ITR 120High Court2015#8443 most cited

What is CIT v. S.R. Jeyashankar authority for?

The date of allotment of an undivided share in land is the date of acquisition for computing capital gains, not the date of the sale deed.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.R. Jeyashankar · 373 ITR 120 · capital gains · date of acquisition · allotment letter · undivided share of land · sale deed · indexation benefit

Judgments citing CIT v. S.R. Jeyashankar

Kapil Ahuja, Visakhaptnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circel - 3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 148Section 263Section 54

…1 आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.214/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) Kapil Ahuja, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, PAN: AGPPA7095N Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Sri I. Kama Sastry, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by :…

Renu Khurana, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int.Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Renu Khurana, Vs. Acit, H. No. 6480, Sector C-6, Intl. Taxation -2(1)(2), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Bbppk6150E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 48

…om financial year 2005-06. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. Praveen Gupta Vs. ACIT, ITA No.2558/Del/2010 for AY: 2007-08. 2. CIT Vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi, 279 ITR 552 3. CIT Vs. S.R. Jeyashankar [2015] 373 ITR 120 (Mad.) 4. L. Vivekananda Vs. ACIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 67 (Bangalore – Trib.) 5. Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT, [2014] 363 ITR 54 (P&H) 5. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. The short issue ari…

Shri Murali M. Natarajan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-21, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2811/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2811/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Murali M. Natrajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of 7, Rams Apartments, 78A, Ttk Road, Vs. Income Tax, Opp. Alwarpet Post Office, Non Corporate Circle 21 Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aanpm2599P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 04.08.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 25.07.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Whether The Date Of Allotment Of Flat Or Date Of Acquisition Of The Property Has To Be Taken Into Consideration For Computing Capital Gain Tax.

Section 143(3)

…e decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC). He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. S.R. Jeyashankar [2015] 53 taxmann.com 107 (Madras/373 ITR 120. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that all the judgement relied on by the ld. AR are decided by applying the Circular No. 471 dated 15.10.1986, which is issued by the CBDT on the transactions relating to DDA only. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities b…

Karan Chaudhary, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-30(2), Kolkata

ITA 532/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2016-17

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year:2016-17 Karan Chaudhary Income Tax Officer, बनाम / P/593, Purnadas Road, Ward-30(2), Aayakar V/s. Kolkata-700 029 Bhawan, (Dakshin), [PAN No.AHNPC 5835 D] 2,Gariahat Road, K Kolkata-700 031 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Hearing through video Conferencing Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-02-2021 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 08-02-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आ…

L. Vivekananda, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 1087/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R

…ITA No.1087/Bang/2018 Shri L. Vivekananda, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri L. Vivekananda M/s. Vivek Hotels, 1294/1-B ACIT J.L.B. Road Circle-1(1), Residency Road Vs. Mysuru-570 005 Nazarbad Mysuru-570 010 PAN NO : AASPV6693A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G.N. Bhat, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2020 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee…

Triple Ess Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-27, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR and Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…ourt of Delhi in the case of CIT v. K. Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59 d. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Jitendra Mohan (2007) 165 Taxman 524 (Delhi) e. Hon’ble Madra High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. R. Jeyashankar (2015) 373 ITR 120 (Madras) f. Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Anita D. Kanjani v. ACIT (2017) 163 ITD 451 g. Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy (2018) 96 taxmann.com 648 h. Jindas Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR 552 (Gujarat) i. CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj) j. Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in the cas…

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

…sfer' under section 2(47) as discussed in Gulshan Malik (supra), this Court has no doubt that the assessee's contentions were merited. [Para 6] (v) Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT, Salary Circle, Chennai vs., S.R. Jeyashankar (2015) 373 ITR 120 (Madras), in which it was held as under : “Where assessee had entered Into an agreement with builder for purchase of undivided share of land and construction, date of allotment of undivided share in land was to be adopted as date of acquisition for computing capital gain instead of date of sale deed.” 14 ITA.No.4334/Del./2018 M/s. Elegant Infra…

Ramesh A Radhakrishnan, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 35(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1244/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Hiro Rai, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…t various higher judicial authorities, in catena of judgment, taken a view favorable to the assessee. Few of which are listed below:- 1. Madhu Kaul Vs CIT (P & H HC) 363 ITR 54 2. CIT Vs Ramakrishnan (Delhi HC) 363 ITR 59 3. CIT Vs S R Jeyashankar (Madras HC) 373 ITR 120 5.7 Viewed from any angle, we are unable to find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion of Ld. first appellate authority that the ITA.No.1244/Mum/2017 Ramesh A.Radhakrishnan Assessment Year- 2012-13 capital gains earned were Short Term in nature and therefore, we reverse the same. The resultantly gain as counted from date of agreement, in ou…

ITO, Ward - 31(1), Kolkata vs. Mahesh Kumar Singhania (HUF), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1387/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, Advocate
Section 48Section 50C

…ITA No.1387/Kol/2017 – Mahesh Kumar Singhania (HUF) A.Y.2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘SMC’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM] Assessment Year : 2013-14 I.T.O., Ward-31(1) versus- Mahesh Kumar Singhania(HUF) Kolkata Kolkata (PAN: AACHM 5435 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, JCIT For the Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, Advocate Date of Hearing : 08.09.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2017. ORDER This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-9, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2013-14 on t…

ITO 22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Liladhar R. Tandel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross

ITA 959/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicil Member

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIL MEMBER ITA No.959/Mum./2014 C.O No.153/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) ITO 22(3)(2) Vashi Rly. Station, Complex Tower No.6, ……………. Appellant 3Rd Floor, Room No. 307, Navi Mumbai v/s Liladhar R. Tandel Laxmi Niwas, At Karve Post Nerul ……………. Respondent Navi Mumbai 400705 PAN AAFPT6631H Assessee by : Shri. Hari S. Raheja Revenue by : Shri. V. Jenardhanan Date of Hearing –13.07.2017 Date of Order - 22.09.2017 O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA. This is an appeal filed by the revenue and…

Nandita Patodia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 5982/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Smt. Nandita Patodia Income Tax Officer Ward 72, Mount Unique, 16(1)(1) Vs. 62A, Peddar Road, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Mumbai – 400 026 Mumbai - 400007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp0811D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54

…ntative of the assessee has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT and another [ 363 ITR 54] and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.R.Jeyshankar [373 ITR 120] and the order of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Sharad Tadani [104 TTJ 567 etc. However, the Ld departmental representative has supported the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. On appraisal of the order passed by the Mumbai Tribunal in case of Mrs. Anupama Agarwal Vs. DCIT in ITA No.472/M/2015 dated 23.09.2016, it is quite clear t…

Rakesh Kumar Goel, Muzaffarnagar vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 2246/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR
Section 50CSection 54F

…gain arising out of property in question to the assessee from 29.06.2009, the date of executing the conveyance deed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgments :- (i) CIT vs. R.L. Sood – 245 ITR 727 (Delhi) (ii) CIT vs. S.R. Jeyashanker – 373 ITR 120 (Mad.) (iii) CIT vs. K. Ramakrishan – 363 ITR 59 (Delhi) (iv) Mrs. Madhu Kaul vs. CIT, Chandigarh – (2014) 43 taxmann.com 417 (P&H) 7 ITA No.2246/Del./2015 12. Not only this, Circular No.471 dated 15.10.1986 is also categoric enough to explain the controversy at hand that in such like cases, allottee gets title of the property on the date of is…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7574/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri
Section 14Section 2Section 54

…ide DD No.309531 dated 5-2-2004 amounting to Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.24 lakhs vide DD No.028138 dated 9-2- 2004. We had also verified the bank statement which confirms the payments made by the assessee. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.R.Jeyashankar, 373 ITR 120, held that where the assessee had entered into an agreement with builder for purchase of undivided share of land and construction, the date of allotment of undivided share in land instead of date of sale deed. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K. Ramakrishnan, 363 ITR 59, held that letter of allotment given by HUDA is relevan…