CIT v. Sterling Investment Corpn. Ltd.

123 ITR 441High Court1980#9559 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sterling Investment Corpn. Ltd.

NEERU MOHAN NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: MS. Pallavi Khuntenta, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…rchaser. Similarly in all the cases cited by the appellant, the agreement to sell have been cancelled at the behest of the vender and thus the facts of these cases are not applicable to the present case. In the case of CIT Vs. Sterling Investment Corporation (123 ITR 441), the assessee company entered into an agreement with the vender to purchase certain properties for a total price of Rs. 11,50,000/-. An initial payment of Rs.3,00,00/- was paid by the purchaser. The assessee company ie the purchaser, subsequently wanted to terminate the agreement and as a result of agreement between the parties, only a sum of Rs…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI vs. RUDRADEV AVIATION PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 2100/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012 – 13 The Acit, M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), V. Ltd., Chennai - 34. Rr Tower Iii, Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 152/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. The Acit, Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 5(2), Rr Tower Iii, Chennai - 34. Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R. Venkatesh, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkatesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)

…se of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs R. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar, (1990) 240 ITR 552 (Mad), Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vania Silk Mills (P) Ltd., (1991) 191 ITR 647(SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Sterling Investment Corporation, 123 ITR 441 (Bom). He also relied on the judgments cited by the AO in the assessment order of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Kwality Fun Foods and Restaurants (P) Ltd., supra. He argued that even Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., supra, has categorically held that irrecoverable advance given in the course of business is not a…

MAHESH ARUN GAWLI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 21(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7323/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shri Mahesh Arun Gawli Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of R.No.32, 3Rd Floor Income Tax, Geetai Chs Ltd., Circle 21(2), Mumbai B.J. Marg, Byculla (W) Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajapg8519M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mrs.Asha Arun Gawli Vs. Ito Ward 21(1)-2 Room No.32, 3Rd Floor 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers Geetai Chs Ltd., Lalbaug, Parel, B.J Marg, Byculla West Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 011 Pan/Gir No.Aakpg1429M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ms.Yogita Arun Gawli Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of R.No.32, 3Rd Floor Income Tax, Geetai Chs Ltd., Circle 21(2), Mumbai B.J. Marg, Byculla (W) Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aakpg1429M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dr. K.Shivaram-Sr. Advocate & Ms. Neelam Jadhav Revenue By Shri V. Vinodkumar- Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 29/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/12/2020

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…bsolute title. In the case of M/s TATA Services Limited 122 ITR 594 (BOM) it has been held that the words and phrases " Property under section 2(14) includes any rights which can be called property. Similarly in the case of M/s Sterling Investment Corporation 123 ITR 441 (BOM) a contractual right obtained under the contract of sale will be considered as capital Asset under section 2 (14). In the case of M/s PNB Finance Limited 252 ITR 491 (DELHI) it has been held that the 'property' is of widest import and it signifies every possible interest which a person can acquire, hold or enjoy. Does the right of the assess…

JAIKISHIN ATALRAM RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1

ITA 6856/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 54Section 54F

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 6856/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Shri Jaikishan Atalram Rupani ACIT 23(2) Vs. 6th floor, Makhija Chamber Matru Mandir 196, Turner Road, Bandra (W) Tardeo Mumbai-400 050. Mumbai 400 007. PAN : AAIPR5741F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Lipsa A. Chanchlani Department by Shri R. Bhoopathi Date of Hearing 12.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2020 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 24.9.2018 and pertains to A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal r…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. NARAYAN MANDYAM VEERABUDHI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR
Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 54F

…the wide definition of "capital asset" in the Income-tax Act. It also held that the earnest money paid by assessee to ".." was the consideration for which the property under the agreement had been acquired." 7. CIT Vs. Sterling Investment Corpn. Ltd. (1980) (123 ITR 441), observed as under :- "It considered the definition of "capital asset" under the Income-tax Act and held that the contractual right of the purchaser to obtain title to immovable property for ITA No.1248 /Bang/2016 Page 8 of 17 a price, which right was assignable, had to be considered to be "property" and. therefore a "capital asset". In this…

SHRI GIRISH P. RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is

ITA 1028/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanshri Girish P. Rupani Acit-23(1) Room No. 122, 1St Floor, Makhija Chambers, 196, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Vs. Pan: Aaapr6723P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54F

…onsideration for which the property under the agreement had been acquired. 10 ITA No. 1028 Mum 2018-Shri Girish P. Rupani. 7. The decision in the case of Tata Services Ltd. (supra) was followed by this Court in CIT v. Sterling Investment Corpn. Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 441. This was a case where the assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase immovable property and had paid earnest money. Matters dragged on. Ultimately, an agreement was reached and only the sum of Rs. 10,000 was returned to the assessee. The assessee claimed before the tax authorities that it had lost the balance of the earnest money that it…

ITO (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MONISH KAAN TAHILRAMANI, MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4715/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Makwana- Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 53A

…operty. Undisputedly, the right to own / obtain conveyance of immoveable property was a capital asset in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs Tata Services Ltd. [122 ITR 594] an also in CIT Vs Sterling Investment Corporation Ltd. [123 ITR 441]. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by first appellate authority that the gains were Long-Term Capital Gains in nature as counted from 16/03/2005 would require no interference on our part. The appeal stands dismissed to that extent. 5.3 The revenue has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal rendered in S.Narendrakumar & Co. Vs DCIT [62 Taxman.co…

KAMAL KISHORE SINGHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 813/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamal Kishore Singhi Asstt. Commissioner Of 10/161, Kamal Park Income Tax-26(1) K.G. Vs. Building, V.S. Marg, Mahim, Mittal Hospital Bldg., Mumbai-400016. 6Th Floor, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400002 Pan No. Aadps3820K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hari S. Raheja, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…AO at page 3-4 of his assessment order dated 21.03.2014. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision in Mrs. Seeta Subramanium v. ACIT (1996) 59 ITD 94 (Madras), CIT v. Tata Teleservices Ltd. 122 ITR 594, CIT v. Sterling Investment Corpn. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 441 (Bom), ITO v. Smt. Kashmiraben M. Parekh (1992) 44 TTJ (Ahd) 68, Manju Agarwal v. ACIT (ITA No. 3923 of 2002 dated 16.09.2004) by ITAT Mumbai, Jitendra Mohan v. ITO (2007) 11 SOT 594 (Del), CIT v. Jindas Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR 552 (Guj), M. Symala Rao v. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 140 (AP). Shri Kamal Kishore Singhi 4 However, the AO was not con…

BHANSALI INFOTECH P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 426/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Office No. 5 & 6 Income Tax (Osd) 10(3) Shakti Arcade Aayakar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Plot No.5, Sector – 19D Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Room No.517, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccb7808E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143Section 147

…10) 46 DTR 185 P & H iv. Lahar Singh Siroya v ACIT (2016) 138 DTR 331 (Kar-HC) v. ITO v Smt Jayshree H Jain (2016) (2) TMI 346 (Mum ITAT) vi. CIT v Ram Gopal ITA no. 70/2015, order dt 09/02/2015 (Delhi HC) vii. CIT v Sterling Investment Corporation Ltd (1980) 123 ITR 441 (Bom) viii. CIT v Ms. Bina Indrakumar (2015) 370 ITR 552 (Bom) 15 M/s. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., ix. Ahmed G.H. Ariff v Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1970) 76 ITR 471(SC) 18. It was contended that neither AO nor CIT(A) has appreciated the facts with respect to provisions of Section 2(14) & 2(47) read with Section 45 of the income tax Act. With…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI CHAND RATAN BAGRI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 31 / 2010HC Delhi20 Jan 2010
For Appellant: Ms P.L. Bansal with Ms Anshul SharmaFor Respondent: Mr Salil Aggarwal with Mr Prakash Kumar
Section 2(47)Section 45

…the case of Grace Collis (supra). 11. In the rejoinder, Ms Bansal, who appears on behalf of the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sterling Investment Corporation Limited (Bom.): 123 ITR 441. 12. We have considered the arguments and have gone through the 2010:DHC:331-DB ITA 31/2010 Page 7 of 8 impugned order and papers on record and we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the present appeal does not deserve admission a…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI CHAND RATAN BAGRI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/31/2010HC Delhi20 Jan 2010
For Appellant: Ms P.L. Bansal with Ms Anshul SharmaFor Respondent: Mr Salil Aggarwal with Mr Prakash Kumar
Section 2(47)Section 45

…the case of Grace Collis (supra). 11. In the rejoinder, Ms Bansal, who appears on behalf of the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sterling Investment Corporation Limited (Bom.): 123 ITR 441. 12. We have considered the arguments and have gone through the 2010:DHC:331-DB ITA 31/2010 Page 7 of 8 impugned order and papers on record and we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the present appeal does not deserve admission a…