CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal

190 ITR 56High Court1991#2584 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.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 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 48Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 37Section 48(1)Section 120(4)(b)

Issues it is cited on

relinquishment of rightsection 48full value of considerationcost of improvementtransfer of capital assetright to receivemistake apparent from recordsection 45date of transferlong term capital gainssection 34admission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal

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…

Gujarat Venture Capital Fund 1995, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-10, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2869/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 45(1)Section 48Section 48(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE, JUSTICE SHRI P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2869/AHD/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Gujarat Venture Capital Fund 1995 A.C.I.T, 1st Floor, Premchand House, Vs. Circle-10, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad PAN: AAATG2269D (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri S.N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.Rs : Revenue by Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 03/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/01/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER WA…

Jamshed Ali Molla, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-30, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2233/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2233/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jamshed Ali Molla -Vs- Dcit, Circle-30, Kolkata [Pan: Aevpm 4145 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…assessee subsequently sold the hotel to ITC and settled the matter with Buhari at a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The Madras High Court following an earlier judgment of the Bombay High Court, held as follows: "The Bombay High Court in CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 (58 Taxman 106), has dealt with a case where the assessee owned a piece of land and she entered into an agreement of sale of the said property with one R and a dispute subsequently arose and R filed a suit for specific performance and there was a settlement whereby 7 8 Jamshed Ali Molla A.Yr. 2008-09 the assessee agreed to pay certain sum of mone…

Gic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 22/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ Gic Housing Finance Ltd. Addl. Cit Rg 2(1) Royal Insurance Building, R.No. 561, 5 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, J. Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Churchgate, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg2755R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Amit Kirve Revenue By : Shri A.M. Mittal, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 22/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 21.10.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 22.10.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Amit KirveFor Respondent: Shri A.M. Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

…cted with the transfer of shares. It does not specify that the expenditure incurred will be eligible for deduction if it is made during the year in which the sale of shares is carried out. Also, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ShakuntalaKantilal (190 ITR 56,59), has held that the expression 'in connection with such transfer' is wider and more liberal in meaning than the phraseology 'for the transfer.' By reason of employing such a wide expression i.e. 'in connection with', something more than what is attributable to the final act of transfer of shares is also admissible for deduction provided the int…

Shri Dev Suman Saini, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 397/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri B.P. Mundra, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR

…l depend on whether the expen ses incurred by the assessee and other co owners constitute cost of improvement under section 48(ii). The said point is covered by the judg ment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the 8 Shri Dev Suman Saini vs ACIT, Circle – 6, Jaipur case of Hardiallia Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 598. On eviction of the hutment dwellers from the land in question, the value of the land increases and, therefore, the expenditure incurred for having the land vacated would certain…

ACIT Cir 16(1), Mumbai vs. Apurva Mahesh Shah, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 6959/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sh. Apurva Mahesh Shah, 1403, Tax-16(1), Mumbai. Pleasant Palace, Narayan बिधम/ Dabholkar Road, Mumbai-400 Vs. 006. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Abbps3726K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Apurva Shah, (
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48

…es was allowable as a deduction while computing the capital gain on transfer of shares. The ITAT, Pune Bench while concluding as hereinabove, had taken support of the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Shakuntla Kantilal (1991)190 ITR 56 (Bom), wherein it was held that expenses incurred in connection with transfer of a capital asset was to be allowed as a deduction under Sec. 48 of the Act. Subsequently, the ITAT, Mumbai „C‟ bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar Harlalka Vs. ACIT, Circle 12(3), Mumbai (2012) 143 TTJ 446 (Mum), observing that the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of…

Sunil Chimanlal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(3) (Erstwhile ACIT CC-46), Mumbai

ITA 7181/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-Sr.AR-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 48

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “डी” खंडपीठ म" Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“D”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7181/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-12(2)(1) M/s. D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. Room No.223, 2nd Floor 1071/Solitaire Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Guru Har Govind Marg, Chakala, M.K. Road-400 020. Andheri(E), Mumbai 400 093. PAN : AAACD 3816 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज…

DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. D C Polyester P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7181/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-Sr.AR-CIT
Section 143(3)Section 48

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “डी” खंडपीठ म" Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“D”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7181/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" DCIT-12(2)(1) M/s. D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. Room No.223, 2nd Floor 1071/Solitaire Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Guru Har Govind Marg, Chakala, M.K. Road-400 020. Andheri(E), Mumbai 400 093. PAN : AAACD 3816 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज…

Mateen Pyarali Dholkia, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6950/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mateen Pyarali Dholkia Dcit-19(3) 90, Gr. Floor, Hill Road, Opp. Vijaya Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bank Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Abapd1241K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anil Thakrar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Thakrar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

…para 6.4 of his order dated 08.08.2016 as produced below: “(1) the decision of the Pune Bench in KRA Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was primarily based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Kantilal (1991) 190 ITR 56 (Bom), which had been subsequently held to be not a good law by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein Merchant (2005) 275 ITR 231 (Bom). The later judgment overruling the earlier judgment was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Pune Bench. (2) on referring to various clauses of the PMS agreements regarding consid…

ITO 17(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sudhir Ravee Sood, Mumbai

ITA 5423/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R
Section 131Section 48Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITO, 17(3)(4), Shri Sudhir Ravee Sood, 612, 6th Floor, Maker Aayakar Bhavan, Room No.123, 1st Floor, Chambers, Vs. M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN: AAEPS 2032G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Anil Sathe, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 10.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present app…

Sh. Baljeet Singh Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4209/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Dandey, Sr.DR
Section 48

…short count itself. Ld AR relied on following case laws to support his plea: i) Delhi High court in Kuldeep Singh (12/08/2014) ii) Kolkata ITAT in Satyabrata Dey (14/05/2013) iii) Delhi High Court in Eagle Theatres 205 Taxman 449 iv) Bombay High Court in 190 ITR 56 v) Madras High Court in 261 ITR 222 3.4 Apropos the second issue of Rs 19,28,859/-, the Ld AR submitted that since the matter was old and the cost of improvement was genuinely incurred, just for want of specific documentary evidence/s, the AO cannot reject it where it has been expressly submitted that said cost was incurred in year of acquisit…

M/S. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…y that the company first settles the dues of the workmen thus enabling the company to dispose off the property. He drew our attention to the following judgments: 1. Gopeenath Paul & Sons and another vs DCIT 278 ITR 240 (Cal) 2. CIT vs Shakuntala Kantilal 190 ITR 56 (Cal) 3. CIT vs Bradford Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 261 ITR 222 (Mad) & 4. CIT vs Abrar Alvi 247 TR 312 (Bom) 4.6 Alternatively he submitted that the payment also qualifies for deduction u/s. 37(1), as the same was made on the 16 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 grounds of commercial expediency. The need for such payments was imposed by a statutory l…

Sivanandha Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143Section 143(1)

…y that the company first settles the dues of the workmen thus enabling the company to dispose off the property. He drew our attention to the following judgments: 1. Gopeenath Paul & Sons and another vs DCIT 278 ITR 240 (Cal) 2. CIT vs Shakuntala Kantilal 190 ITR 56 (Cal) 3. CIT vs Bradford Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., 261 ITR 222 (Mad) & 4. CIT vs Abrar Alvi 247 TR 312 (Bom) 4.6 Alternatively he submitted that the payment also qualifies for deduction u/s. 37(1), as the same was made on the 16 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 grounds of commercial expediency. The need for such payments was imposed by a statutory l…

Saurashtra Fuels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 7273/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra(D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80M

…was specifically over ruled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Roshanbabu Mohd. Hussein Merchant (supra) and at placitum 18 it has been observed as under: "As regards the decisions of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 followed in the case of Abrar Alvi [2001] 247 ITR 312] and the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (No. 1) [2001] 227 ITR 802which are strongly relied upon by the counsel for the assessee, we are of the opinion that the said decisions are no longer good law in the light of the subsequent decisions of the apex…

Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Mumbai vs. ACIT Crn Cir 34, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 5159/MUM/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5157 To 5159/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 To 2008-09) Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Vs. Acit, Cc-34, Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400071 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd 5020 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A Of The Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Years Pertains To Disallowance Of Claim Of Management Fees While Computing Short Term Capital Gain U/S.48 Of The I.T.Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Shown Income Under The Head Short Term Capital Gain. While Computing The Same Assessee Has Claimed

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…n was specifically over ruled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Roshanbabu Mohd. Hussein Merchant (supra) and at placitum 18 it has been observed as under: "As regards the decisions of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 followed in the case of Abrar Alvi [2001] 247 ITR 312] and the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (No. 1) [2001] 227 ITR 802which are strongly relied upon by the counsel for the assessee, we are of the opinion that the said decisions are no longer good law in the light of the subsequent decisions of the apex…

Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Mumbai vs. ACIT Crn Cir 34, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 5158/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5157 To 5159/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 To 2008-09) Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Vs. Acit, Cc-34, Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400071 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd 5020 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A Of The Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Years Pertains To Disallowance Of Claim Of Management Fees While Computing Short Term Capital Gain U/S.48 Of The I.T.Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Shown Income Under The Head Short Term Capital Gain. While Computing The Same Assessee Has Claimed

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…n was specifically over ruled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Roshanbabu Mohd. Hussein Merchant (supra) and at placitum 18 it has been observed as under: "As regards the decisions of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 followed in the case of Abrar Alvi [2001] 247 ITR 312] and the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (No. 1) [2001] 227 ITR 802which are strongly relied upon by the counsel for the assessee, we are of the opinion that the said decisions are no longer good law in the light of the subsequent decisions of the apex…

Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Mumbai vs. ACIT Crn Cir 34, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 5157/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5157 To 5159/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 To 2008-09) Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Vs. Acit, Cc-34, Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400071 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd 5020 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A Of The Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Years Pertains To Disallowance Of Claim Of Management Fees While Computing Short Term Capital Gain U/S.48 Of The I.T.Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Shown Income Under The Head Short Term Capital Gain. While Computing The Same Assessee Has Claimed

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…n was specifically over ruled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Roshanbabu Mohd. Hussein Merchant (supra) and at placitum 18 it has been observed as under: "As regards the decisions of this court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 followed in the case of Abrar Alvi [2001] 247 ITR 312] and the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Smt. Thressiamma Abraham (No. 1) [2001] 227 ITR 802which are strongly relied upon by the counsel for the assessee, we are of the opinion that the said decisions are no longer good law in the light of the subsequent decisions of the apex…

M/S. B O C India Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Cir-12, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 669/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 28

…yment made by the party. In our considered view the discount given by the assessee should be reduced from the sale consideration to work out the actual income of the assessee. In this connection we are having reliance in the case of Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 where the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the expression full value of consideration contemplates both additions to, as well as deductions from, the apparent value. What it means is the real and effective consideration. Further in the case of Dr. Fareed Jamshid Italia (2011) 203 taxman 241 where it has been observed by the Hon'ble Madras H…

D.C.I.T., Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S. B O C India Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1071/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 28

…yment made by the party. In our considered view the discount given by the assessee should be reduced from the sale consideration to work out the actual income of the assessee. In this connection we are having reliance in the case of Shakuntala Kantilal [1991] 190 ITR 56 where the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the expression full value of consideration contemplates both additions to, as well as deductions from, the apparent value. What it means is the real and effective consideration. Further in the case of Dr. Fareed Jamshid Italia (2011) 203 taxman 241 where it has been observed by the Hon'ble Madras H…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Capt. Avinash J Batra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7439/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7407/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Capt. Avinash Chander Dy. Cit., Range, 2(3), बनाम/ Batra, Room No. 556, 5 Th Floor, V. C/O Kucheria & Associates Aayakar Bhavan, 59, Jolly Maker No. 2 Mumbai-400 021 Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpb3384M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)
Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 48

…essee. Thus as per the assessee , the expenditure is therefore only related to buying and selling of shares and to no other activity whatsoever. The assessee relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shakuntala Kantilal (1991)190 ITR 56(Bom.) , Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Abrar Alvi, (2001)247 ITR 312(Bom. HC) and also judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in V A Vasumathi v. CIT (1980)123 ITR 94 (Kerala). The assessee submitted that the expenses incurred were mainly on portfolio management services paid to portfolio manager and the assessee was havin…