How many judgments cite CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal (190 ITR 56), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 48, Section 143(3), Section 143(2), Section 144B, Section 144C(13), Section 37.

CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal

190 ITR 56High Court1991#2587 most cited

What is CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal authority for?

Payments made by an assessee to release property from an encumbrance or settle disputes, which are essential for a sale transaction to materialize, are allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act for computing capital gains. Such expenditure either reduces the full value of consideration or is deductible from it.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal · Section 48 deduction · capital gains computation · expenditure to remove encumbrance · payment to settle dispute · full value of consideration · property transfer expenses · essential for sale to materialize · perfection of title

Sections most often in play

Section 48 Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 144C(13)Section 37 Section 48(1)Section 120(4)(b)

Issues it is cited on

relinquishment of right section 48 full value of consideration cost of improvement transfer of capital asset right to receive mistake apparent from record section 45 date of transfer long term capital gains section 34 admission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal

ZARAH RAFIQUE MALIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO (INT TAX) WARD-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

…of expenditure by the selling shareholders is also made in the IPO prospectus of the company. Copy of the relevant portion of the Prospectus is enclosed elsewhere. Some of the propositions laid down by the judiciary are as under: CIT Vs Shakuntala Kantilal 190 ITR 56 (Bom HC) The Bombay High court has held as under: “It could not be disputed that unless the assessee had settled the dispute with R Ltd. the sale transaction with the society would not, or could not, have materialized. If this transaction had not materialized there would have perhaps been no question of capital gains. One way of looking at the pr…

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SURENDRA NATH GUBBALA, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

…of the cost of acquisition. Accordingly, it was held that a payment made to perfect the title or settle ownership disputes to facilitate the sale of a property will qualify as a deductible expenditure u/s 48 of the Act. (B). CIT Vs. Shakuntla Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bom). The assessee in the present case had executed an “agreement to sell” and paid compensation to the earlier party to release the property from encumbrance. The High Court held that the payment made by the assessee was allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Act. (C). Yogesh Patel Vs. DCIT 32 ITA No.482/Viz/2024 & CO No.03/Viz/2025…

ITO, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. ARKA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.58/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd Ward 1 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafca7411H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 23/11/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 1 Day By The Revenue In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. We Have Heard The Learned Dr As Well As The Learned Ar On The Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Objected For Condonation Of Delay Of One Day In Filing

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 148Section 45

…. (46 ITR 144(S.C) 15. ACIT vs. Emaar MGF Constructions (P) Ltd (ITA No.1734/Del/2016) ITAT Delhi. 16) Dinesh Vazi Rani – 445 ITR 110 (Bom) 17) Kaushalya Devi (Deceased) through legal representative vs. CIT (4504ITR 136) (Del.) 18) CIT vs. Shakuntla Kantilal (190 ITR 56) (Bom.) 19) Gopeenath Paul (198 CTR 116)(Cal.) 20) CIT vs. Abrar Alvi (247 ITR 312) 21) Chincholi Guru Raja Char Venkatesh (149 Taxmann.com 90 (Kar.) 22) N. Raja Rajan – 120 Taxmann.com 402 (Mad) 23) Income Tax Officer vs. Taj Services (P) Ltd (143 TTJ 70) (Mum.) 24) CIT vs.Daksha Ramlal (197 ITR 123) (Guj.) 7. We have considered the rival submis…

BASE REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 48

…lls in the nature of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer of capital asset. In this context it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal reported in 190 ITR 56 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that originally expenditure incurred in connection with the 8 M/s. Base Realty Pvt. Ltd transfer of capital asset / securities should be allowed after observing and holding as under:- “4. The assessee claimed that this amount of Rs. 35,504 should be allowed as deduction for the purpose of computing her income under t…

YOGESH PATEL,USA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INT TAXATION 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

ITA 2065/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs DCIT, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. USA 94560. PAN: ARPPP4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 23.06.2023 passed u/s 14…

M/S RISHI CONSTRUCTION ,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 88/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit (Central)-2, Rishi Construction, Bhopal F-11, Mansarovar Complex, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Bhopal Vs.

Section 143(3)

…ction 48(i) and therefore the assessee is very much entitled to deduction. The judicial decisions relied by Ld. AR are as follows: (i) Mahesh Pratapsingh Asher Vs. ACIT (2022) 135 Taxmann.com 74 (Mumbai – ITAT) (ii) CIT Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bombay) (iii) CIT Vs. Abrar Alvi (2001) 117 Taxman 95 (Bombay) (iv) CIT Vs. Abrar Alvi (2002) ITR (St.) 80 (SC) 8. Ld. DR for revenue referred following paras of assessment-order and submitted that the AO has considered the assessee’s submissions and only thereafter made addition in assessment-order, therefore the AO’s order is perfect and mu…

ACIT CENTRAL -2 BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RISHI CONSTRUCTION , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 220/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit (Central)-2, Rishi Construction, Bhopal F-11, Mansarovar Complex, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Bhopal Vs.

Section 143(3)

RISHI GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1690/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ure not incurred, the subject transaction of sale of subject property could not have taken place and consequently no question of capital gain subject to capital gain tax. The similar position has been upheld by the judgment of the High court of Mumbai (1991) 190 ITR 56(Bom) between CIT VS Shakuntala Kantilal: The sale transaction with Messr Cosmas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, under the agreement dated March 30, 1967, would not, rather would not, have materialized If this transaction had not materialized, there would perhaps have been no question of capital gains. The sale would have then taken place at the…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS L & T SHIPBUILDING LIMITED ), MUMBAI

ITA 2350/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Larsen & Toubro Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Central Circle-5(4), As L & T Shipbuilding Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Limited), Vs. Air India Building, L&T House, Nariman Point, N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl0140P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, D.R

Section 48(1)Section 50B

…tallized later on but as per scheme of arrangement it has to be allowed. 14. The Ld. A.R . for the assessee also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Shakuntala Kantilal reported in 190 ITR 56 qua the identical issue, the operative port of which is extracted as under: "The expression 'in connection with such transfer is, in our view, certainly wider than the expression for the transfer. Here again, we are of the view that any amount the payment of which is absolutely necessary to effect the transfer will be an expenditure covered by thi…

ADIL REHMAN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Anil A. Masand, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 147Section 48

…ctions before the learned DRP and submitted that all the expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with transfer are allowable expenditure and relied upon by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (BOM). 4. Learned DRP, however, was of the opinion that such an expenditure was merely incidental to the sale transaction and cannot be allowed to be deduction since such an expenditure was not wholly and exclusively for the transfer of property. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned AR submitted that though the assessee placed reliance on the decision…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 vs. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT LTD

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006126-006126 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6126 OF 2021 (@ SLP (C) NO. 13380 OF 2018) The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 …Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature, at Bombay in ITA No.78 of 2015 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal. Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021…

ROCK & STONES,BENGALURU vs. THE ITO, WARD- 2(2)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 1124/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 234B

…ITA No.1124/Bang/2022 Rock & Stones, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC’ “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rock & Stones Survey No.66/52 Opp. Jigani Weigh Bridge Jigani Main Road ITO Ward-2(2)(4) Vs. Anekal Taluk Bengaluru Bengaluru 560 106 PAN NO : AAJFR4201R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of Hearing : 20.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee i…

VIPUL MANSUKHBHAI BHIMANI,NIZAMPURA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(3), VADODARA

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

ITA 1524/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vipul Mansukhbhai Bhimani, Income Tax Officer, 29/D, Suvernarekha Society, Vs Ward 1(3)(3), Nr. Mehsana Nagar Society, Vadodara Nizampura, Gujarat-390002 Pan : Acfpb 6160 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Ms. M.M. Garg, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.M. Garg, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

…st of improvement of the property, he is entitled for deduction on index basis while computing the capital gain, it is observed that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal, (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bom), wherein it was held that compensation paid to earlier buyer to cancel the agreement is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer because without removing any encumbrance the sale or transfer of property could not be effected. As held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, such compensation, therefore, cannot be t…

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

…it is incurred in connection with the transfer. Reference is made to the following cases where various kinds of payments have been held allowable under section 48 of the Act. CIT v/s Abrar Alvi [2001] 247 ITR 312(Bom) CIT vs. Smt. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 (Bom) Kaushalya Devi vs. CIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 335 (Del) 23. Mr. Mansukhani has offered a sum of Rs. 9.28 crores to tax in his income tax return for AY 2011-12, as the balance amount was kept in an Escrow account and released on completion of the milestone. Kindly see page 81 of paper-book in the head "Income from Business/Profession". 24. In…

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MishraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

…. Reference is made to the following cases where various kinds of payments have been held allowable under section 48 of the Act. 9 ITA No. 2270 & 3286 Mum 2016-Leila Advani CIT v/s Abrar Alvi [2001] 247 ITR 312(Bom) CIT vs. Smt. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 (Bom) Kaushalya Devi vs. CIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 335 (Del) 21. Mr. Mansukhani has offered a sum of Rs. 9.28 crores to tax in his income tax return for AY 2011-12, as the balance amount was kept in an Escrow account and released on completion of the milestone. Kindly see page 81 of paper-book in the head "Income from Business/Profession". 22. In…

MAHESH PRATPSINH ASHAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 21(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2553/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 48

…in connection with the 4 ITA o.2553/mum/2019 transfer of the property, it is an allowable deduction. In support of such contention, she relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Abrar Alvi (2001) 117 Taxman 95 (Bom) 2. CIT vs Shakuntala Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bom) 3. V Laxmi Reddy vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 359 (Bom) 6. The learned departmental representative strongly relied upon the observations of the assessing officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). Further, drawing our attention to certain observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals), he submitted, crucial agreements / documents were not filed be…

DCIT 7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1799/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

For Appellant: Shri A Mohan, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…hus, he submitted, the deduction claimed by the assessee has to be allowed. In support of such contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: - CIT v. R. Ramanathan Chettiar (152 ITR 489) (Madras High Court) CIT v. Shankuntala Kantilal (190 ITR 56) (Bom.HC) Mr. June Perrett V. ITO (298 ITR 268) (Kar. HC) CIT vs. Dr. P Rajendran (127 ITR 810) (Kerala HC) 45. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, though, it may be a fact that the factual aspect of the issue has not been properly verified in the earlier stages, however, various issues have not been properly explained by the assess…

NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

ITA 2172/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Senior

Section 2Section 45

…Mrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs The Additional CIT , New Delhi INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ― E‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of 15, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Road, Income tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, PAN: AATPS06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Adv Ms. Manasvini Bajpai, Adv Revenue by: Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Senior Standing Counsel, Adv Shri Agni Sen, Adv Date of Hearing 10/10/2019 Date of pronouncement 19/12/2019 O R D E…

THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JAGDISHCHANDRA B. PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2166/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2166/Ahd/2016 With C.O.159/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 I.T.O, Shri Jagdishchandra B. Patel, Ward-2(2)(1), Vs. 4A, Ketan Society, Ahmedabad. Nr. Sardar Patel Colony, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad. Pan: Afupp4222L

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &

Section 48

…r come on record that the assessee made the impugned payment in furtherance to an arbitration award having very much a legal sanctity under arbitration law. It is evident from the paper book that hon'ble Bombay high court in CIT vs. Shakuntala Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bombay) allows very much a similar claim of expenditure by holding the same to be in connection with the transfer in question u/s.48(i) of the Act. We find that the assessee therein had entered into an agreement. The vendee concerned filed a suit. The assessee paid the sum in question to the earlier vendee. He thereafter sold the very property to…

ACIT, AJMER vs. REKHA SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 945/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (ACIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 48

…48(ii) of the Act for cost of improvement. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Abrar Alvi (2001) 247 ITR 312. He has also relied upon the decision in case of CIT Shakuntala Kantilal 190 ITR 56 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Bradford Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. 261 ITR 222 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Courts have taken a consistent view that the amount paid for removing encumbrance and settlement of claim is expenditure incurred in connection of transfer of capital assets 4 ACIT vs. Smt. Rekha…

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3