CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas

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

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

…bstantial value on merit and the same may not be accepted, as the addition made by the assessing officer is genuine and lawful." 5.4 The Panel is therefore of the view that, the assessee's reliance on the case laws cited below: CIT v Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC), CIT v Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd 88 ITR 1(SC), Dalmia Cement Ltd v CIT 237 ITR 617 (SC),is misplaced as assessee has not discharged the primary onus of providing all the relevant documents in support of the claim of expenditure to the tune of Rs. 13,56,87,500/-. Therefore, the objection of the assessee on the above is rejected.” 6.2 T…

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Ramprastha Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the revenue appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

…by overriding title. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,19,42,019/- ignoring the vital decision of hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sitaldas Tirathdas {(1961) 41 ITR 367} on identical issue. Page 3 of 7 3. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and / or delete or mend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. We have heard both the parties. The Ld. Sr. DR placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sital Das Tirath Das 41 ITR 367, emphasized on the facts an…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Pvt Ltd

…position that the income from investments made was firstly received by the assesssee itself. 6. He has, in this connection, drawn our attention to the following pertinent observations as rendered by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas [(1961) 41 ITR 367]: “16. These are the cases which have considered the problem from various angles. Some of them appear to have applied the principle correctly and some, not. But we do not propose to examine the correctness of the decisions in the light of the facts in them. In our opinion, the true test is whether the amount sought to be deducted, in truth,…

DCIT (E), Circle- Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad vs. Sewa- Thdc, Rishikesh

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross

Bench: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

…9] 2. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sakari Sahkar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. CIT [2004] 139 Taxman 434 (SC) [PB. 110-125] 3. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sitaldas Tirathdas [1961] 41 ITR 367 (SC) [PB. 126-130] In which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “…..These are the cases which have considered the problem from various angles. Some of them appear to have applied the principle correctly and some, not. But we do not propose to examine the correctness of the decisions in the light of the facts in them. In our opinion, the t…