CIT v. Tata Services Ltd.

Sonal Ashish Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

…ation under the Stamp Duty Act. Our view is fortified by the decisions of the Tribunal/Hon’ble High Courts in following cases:- a. Praveen Gupta vs ACIT (137 TTJ 307)(ITAT Delhi) b. CIT vs Laxmi devi Ratani (2005) 198 CTR (MP) 336 c. CIT vs Tata Services ltd. 122 ITR 594 d. CIT vs Vijay Flexible Containers 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) 10 A.Y. 2016-17 Sonal Ashish Soni An Individual e. CIT vs Mormasji Man Charji Vaid 168 CTR (Guj.)(FB) 565 f. Arundhati Balkrishna vs CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Guj.) 85. 2.6. In view of the above, we are usefully quoting the relevant portion from the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (…

Trilok Parumal Motiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyaltrilok Parumal Motiani, 213/214, Kalyandas Udyog Bhavan, Near Century Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aahpm3289N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian Respondent By : Sh. Purnesh Gururani, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2023 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai (For Short ‘Cit(A)’) Dated 30.04.2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…ugh possession and registration of the property was subject to complete payment and other obligations to be fulfilled by the assessee and other counterparts. 11. To substantiate its version assessee relied upon following case laws I. CIT Vs TATA Services Ltd 122 ITR 594 (Bomb) II. PCIT Vs Vembu Vaidyanathan 413 ITR 248(Bomb) III. CIT Vs City Bank N.A 261 ITR 570 (Bomb) IV. Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs CIT 260 ITR 491 (Bomb) V. CIT Vs Rajasthan Mirror Manufacturing Co 6 ITA No. 4542 Mum 2019-Trilok Parumal Motiani 12. In view of the above factual matrix and the judicial pronouncement of honourable jurisdict…

ACIT Cent .Cir6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th 15Th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8268P Appellant .. Respondent

…her submitted the compensation is not received on transfer of capital asset within the meaning of Section 45 rws 2(14) of the IT Act. In this regard, the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. 122 ITR 594. It is also submitted that for profit or gain from the receipt, it must have originated by virtue of transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For this, the appellant has relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. 191 ITR 647(SC). Further, the appellant has relied upon section 56 of the Indian C…

ACIT 28 (2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Developers, Navi Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

…nd hence, a "property". The ld. AR has relied upon following decisions, synopsis of which was filed during the course of hearing: a. Sanjeev Lal vs CIT (2014) 105 DTR (SC) 305 b CIT vs. Ramkrishnan (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 55 (Delhi) c. CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd 122 ITR 594 (Bom) d. Simka Hotels and Resorts vs DCIT (2013) 85 DTR 249 (Delhi) 23. She stated that further payment and registration of the sale deed is merely a follow up action and does not create a fresh right in the property. It merely formalises the right which is already created. She vehemently argued that the Assessee has a right to claim specific pe…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ACIT-17(1), Vs. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Room No.117, 1st Floor Employees Stock Option Trust G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex 1 Gateway Building Mumbai – 400 051 Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400 009 PAN/GIR No.AAHFM9583B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mayank Thosar Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar Date of Hearing 02/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement 04/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals in ITA No.1119/Mum/2022 & 1120/Mu…

ACIT-17(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ACIT-17(1), Vs. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Room No.117, 1st Floor Employees Stock Option Trust G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex 1 Gateway Building Mumbai – 400 051 Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400 009 PAN/GIR No.AAHFM9583B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mayank Thosar Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar Date of Hearing 02/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement 04/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These appeals in ITA No.1119/Mum/2022 & 1120/Mu…

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

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

…ransfer would be chargeable only as capital gains whether in the hands of the assessee or any other persons as the case may be. The nature of receipt will not alter even if the assessee is not having an absolute 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 F…

Jaikishin Atalram Rupani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23 (2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

…nclusion that the right to obtain a conveyance of immovable property falls within the expression 'property of any kind' used in section 2(14) and is, consequently, a capital asset. 6. The very issue arose before this Court in CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. [1980] 122 ITR 594. The assessee there had entered into an agreement with A to purchase land and had paid earnest money. A was reluctant to complete the conveyance. Ultimately, a tripartite agreement was entered into between the assessee, A and X where under the assessee transferred and assigned in favour of X its right, title and interest under the agreement and r…

Late Bhagwandas A Nichlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Prem Nichlani On Behalf Of The Ito 17 (1) (2), Late Bhagwandas A. Nichlani, First Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1302/1303, Dalamal Tower, Mumbai - 400020 211, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaepn2256R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinay Sinha (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020

…ned CIT (A) is bad in law. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in not allowing benefit of indexation to the allotment letter dated 17/11/2006 even while accepting that it is a long term asset. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that CIT Vs. Tata Service (1980) 122 ITR 594 Bombay allows right to acquire a property as capital asset and does not allow indexation without appreciating the fact that the judgment was rendered in 1980 whereas indexation was introduced from 1992. 4. It is prayed that the benefit of indexation may be allowed in respect of allotment letter.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assesse…