CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy

ACIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Sandeep U Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed, for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…enefit of sec. 54 will have to be allowed if the long term capital gain is invested for purchase of new residential property within the stipulated period. 5.5 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs T N Arvind Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 (SC) that the purchase in the context of sec. 54 should be understood in a liberal sense without any undue restriction limiting the meaning to "lexical legalese. It has been held in the case_of_CIT vs Sambandan Uday Kumar (2012) 19 Taxmann.com (KAR) that sec. 54 is a beneficial provision for promoting construction of residential house and therefor…

DCIT, CC-7(3), Erstwhile DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Abhishek Lodha, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Abhishek Lodha, Dcit Central Circle 7(3), 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan Abwpl7723N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit Central Circle 7(3), Shri Abhishek Lodha, Mumbai Mumbai 400 001. Vs. Pan Abwpl7723N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Abhinandan Lodha, Dcit Central Circle 7(3), 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan Abwpl7722P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit Central Circle 7(3), Shri Abhinandan Lodha, Mumbai Mumbai 400 001. Vs. Pan Abwpl7722P (Appellant) (Respondent) (A.Y .2009-10)

…at the fourth flat was received by the assessee in lieu of surrender of tenancy rights and it was not acquired against “price in money”. In this situation, the CIT(A) referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T N Aravinda Reddy (120 ITR 46) to say that acquisition of fourth unit could not be construed as ‘purchase’ since it was not against “price in money”. For the aforesaid reasons, CIT(A) held that it could not said that acquisition of the fourth flat constituted new asset so as to deny the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Though the Revenue has contested the af…

Abhishek Lodha, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Abhishek Lodha, Dcit Central Circle 7(3), 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan Abwpl7723N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit Central Circle 7(3), Shri Abhishek Lodha, Mumbai Mumbai 400 001. Vs. Pan Abwpl7723N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Abhinandan Lodha, Dcit Central Circle 7(3), 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Mumbai Vs. Chamber, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan Abwpl7722P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit Central Circle 7(3), Shri Abhinandan Lodha, Mumbai Mumbai 400 001. Vs. Pan Abwpl7722P (Appellant) (Respondent) (A.Y .2009-10)

…at the fourth flat was received by the assessee in lieu of surrender of tenancy rights and it was not acquired against “price in money”. In this situation, the CIT(A) referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T N Aravinda Reddy (120 ITR 46) to say that acquisition of fourth unit could not be construed as ‘purchase’ since it was not against “price in money”. For the aforesaid reasons, CIT(A) held that it could not said that acquisition of the fourth flat constituted new asset so as to deny the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Though the Revenue has contested the af…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.910/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile बिधम/ Shri Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 Co. No.147/Mum/2016 (Ita. No. 910/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2137J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals As Well As Cross Objection Against The Order Dated 27.11.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. Ita. No.910/M/15 Co. No. 147/M/2016 A.Y. 2011-12

…Act. In this regard the CIT(A) has also relied upon the law settled in CIT Vs. Ravender Kumar Arora(2011) 15 taxmann.com 307/203 taxman 289 (Delhi). CIT Vs. Shri Kamal Wahad, ITA no. 4/2013, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi of CIT Vs. TN Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 (SC). The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. We find no illegality and infirmity in allowing the claim of the assessee in view of the provision of Section 54 of the Act. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue. CROSS OBJECTION 3:- 8. Under this cross-objection, the assessee has challenged the…

DCIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Poonam Anil Dalmia, Mumbai

Bench: Shrig. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3471/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…house by State Housing Board or Cooperative Societies would tantamount to ‘purchase’ as on the date of allotment itself. Apart from above, Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case CIT vs T N Arvind Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 (SC) wherein it was held that the purchase in the context of sec. 54 should be understood in a liberal sense without any undue restriction limiting the meaning to "lexical legalese". In the case of CIT vs Smt. Bharat C Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352 (CAL) wherein it was held that if the entire amount has been invested within the period of three years…

Seema M. Pillai, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, 19(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2011-12) Mrs. Seema M. Pillai Vs. Ito-19(1)(4), Mumbai 94-C, Ruby House, Cst Road, (Respondent) Kalina, Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai 400 029 (Appellant) Pan : Afrpp2491N

…case of Rajeev B. Shah (supra) squarely applies. In any case, the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra), wherein a reference has been made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy, 120 ITR 46 (SC), has explained that the expression “purchase” used in Sec. 54 of the Act has to be understood 6 Mrs. Seema M. Pillai pragmatically and in a practical manner. In the present case, the facts are that (i) assessee acquired a specific flat inasmuch as a specific flat was allotted on 1.3.2011; (ii) payments to builder before a period of 2 years…

ITO TDS 3 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Homi Kermani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito Tds 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aappk3340Q Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Shri R.K. Kotain (Ar)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,D,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO TDS 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1st Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. AAPPK3340Q Revenue by Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) Respondent by Shri R.K. Kotain (A…

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

…er’ would not include a deemed owner, so that reference by the assessee to the provisions of section 27(iiib) and section 269UA(f) was, in its view, of no moment. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. T. N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46 (SC); CIT vs. Gopaldas H. Hansrajani [1999] 239 ITR 523 (Bom); and Hameed Jaffery vs. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 724 (Bom), each explaining the scope of the word ‘purchase’ and, further, only in the context of section 54 itself. The well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes, i.e., that where two views are possible, the Court shall be inclined t…

Vishal Dutt, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…also decisions of Hon’ble Karnatka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sri Sambandam Udaykumar (2012) 19 taxmann.com 17(Kar.HC), decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Balraj v. CIT (2002) 123 taxman 290(Del.HC) and CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 (SC). It was the contention of the assessee that the Courts have taken liberal interpretation that the construction may not be completed in all respects and the residential property may not be useable but still benefit u/s 54F of the Act is available being beneficial provisions. The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee, by relyi…

ITO WD 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Late Irene Winfred Through L./Hs John Curtis, Alen Currtis & Mark Curtis, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amit Shukla, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं अमित शुक्ऱा, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3748/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2005-06) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer- 19(3)(2), John Curtis, Alen Curtis & Mark 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Curtis, Vs. Room No.306, L/H Of Late Mrs. Irene Winfred Lalbaug, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400012 52, St.Andrews Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s Jawahar N Ghia and others (ITA No.4665/M/2012 dated 19.11.2013), wherein the co-ordinate bench has followed the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.T.N. Arvinda Reddy (120 ITR 46), wherein it was held that the term ‘purchase’ as buying for a price or equivalent of price by payment inkind or adjustment towards an old debt or for other monetary consideration. Accordingly, the co-ordinate bench had held that residential flats acquired by the assessee by virtue of development agreement in lieu of surrendering the existing prop…

ITO 20(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Chandrakant Himatlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

…the original flat proposed to be acquired through the Agreement for Sale was No. 1302 does not vitiate the claim of the appellant 6.5.1 The connotation of the word 'purchase' was examined by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v T.V. Aravinda Reddy reported at 120 ITR 46 (SC) wherein it was held that the meaning of the word should be interpreted in the sense of common usage. The Court held as follows: "3. We find no reason to divorce the ordinary meaning of the word "purchase" as buying for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards an old debt or for other monetary consideration from…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

…ear before/after the date of sale of the first house property. He submitted the reasons given by the ITO and the CIT(A) in their orders in support of his plea. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda 15 Vembu Vaidyanathan Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46, and the decision of the Tribunal in Sri Rajaram v. ITO (1986) 119 ITR 141(Hyd.). 5. The learned representative for the assessee submitted that the agreement for purchase of property on 22-10-1977 on which the reliance is placed by the Department as the relevant date of purchase was in respect of property under construction. The flat intended to b…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Uday Kashinath Sathe, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Uday Kashinath Sathe, Ward-3(4), 403,404, Happy Valley Phase बनाम/ Room No.9, B-Wing, Vi, Manpada, Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Nr. Tikujiniwadi, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Adups7623L

…ithin a period of one year before/after the date of sale of the first house property. He submitted the reasons given by the ITO and the CIT(A) in their orders in support of his plea. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46, and the decision of the Tribunal in Sri Rajaram v. ITO (1986) 119 ITR 141(Hyd.). 5. The learned representative for the assessee submitted that the agreement for purchase of property on 22-10-1977 on which the reliance is placed by the Department as the relevant date of purchase was in respect of property under construction. The flat 15 Uday Kash…