How many judgments cite CIT v. Tata Services Ltd.?

76 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. (122 ITR 594), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 2(14), Section 50C, Section 143(1).

CIT v. Tata Services Ltd.

122 ITR 594High Court1980#1496 most cited

What is CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. authority for?

A right to purchase property under an agreement to sell is a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. The relinquishment or extinguishment of such a right constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, the consideration for which is taxable as capital gains.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. · section 2(14) · right to acquire property · agreement to sell · capital asset definition · transfer of capital asset · capital gains on relinquishment · intangible right as capital asset

Also reported as

1 Taxmann 427

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 2(14)Section 50C Section 143(1)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(14)section 2(47)percentage completion method period of holding corporate guarantee transfer of capital asset colourable device section 45 intangible assets icds dumb documents indexed cost of acquisition

Judgments citing CIT v. Tata Services Ltd.

Kaushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 40A(2)

…wherein it was held that right to obtain a conveyance of immovable property falls within the expression ‘property of any kind’ used in sec. 2(14) and amount received in connection therewith is liable to capital gains tax: i. CIT vs. Teleservices Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bombay) ii. Hochat Kizhakke Madathil Venkateswara Aiyar vs. Kallor Illath Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436. Ld.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 40A(2)

Morarjee Realities Ltd. (Now Known As Peninsula Land Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T. Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2135/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Poddar

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45

…rarjee Realties Ltd. ITA Nos. 2135 & 2343/Mum/2009 long term capital loss on sale of the said right also. In support thereof, the reliance was placed on: (i)Ahmed GH Ariff and others vs. Commissioner of wealth tax 761TR471(SC) (ii) CIT vs Tata Services Ltd. 122 ITR 594 (Bom) 5.21 The undersigned has carefully perused through the rival contentions. 5.22 It is observed and held that the right in the share application money, isa capital asset. However, since the main portion of the ground of appeal has been already allowed, this subsequent portion of the ground has become redundant which is not necessary to be a…

Chheda Housing Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 86/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Chheda Housing Addl. Cit-32(1) Development Corporation 2Nd Floor, C-11, Pratyakshkar 109-111, Goyal Shopping Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Centre, Opp. Railway Station, Complex, Bandra East, Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. Pan: Aaefc1484E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram With Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (Ar) Respondent By : Shri H.N. Singh Cit –Dr With Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram with Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (AR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh CIT –DR with Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.DR)

Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 254(1)

…i (vi) CIT Vs Asoka Marketing Ltd (164 ITR 664 Calcutta) (vii) DCIT Vs Ýogen Sinhgwi (ITA No.477/M/2011 dated 01.11.2017) (viii) ACIT Vs Jackie Shroff (2018) 194 TTJ 760 (Mumbai) (ix) CIT Vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd (325 ITR 422 SC) (x) CIT Vs Tata services Ltd (122 ITR 594 Bombay) (xi) CIT Vs Vijay Flexible Container (186 ITR 693 Bombay) (xii) K.R. Smith Vs ACIT (268ITR 436 Mad), (xiii) CIT Vs Smt. Laxmidevi Ratni (2008) (296 ITE 363 MP-HC) The learned AR of the assessee submits that the case laws relied by assessing officer in Tata Services (supra) and Vijay Flexible Containers (supra) are not applicable on the fa…

Darshan Hosiery Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6591/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri D.V. Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R

Section 234B

…t to tax in current year.The ld AR relied on a series of decisions in support of his arguments namely (i) C.S. Atwal Vs CIT 378 ITR 244 (P & H) (ii) Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt Ltd Vs State of Haryana and Others 340 ITE 1 (SC) and CIT Vs Tata Tele Services. 122 ITR 594 Bom. Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of CIT(A) may be reversed by directing the AO to delete the long capital gain of Rs. 3,09,87,506/- . 6. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below by submitting that the transfer of rights have taken place during the year in view of the fact that the ass…

Income Tax Officer 30(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meeta Bhavesh Ganatra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5149/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am The Income-Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Meeta Bhavesh 30(2)(3) Ganatra C-13, R.No.608, 6Th Floor A-1301, Vikas Park, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan Link Road, Malad (W) Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Agtpg2793A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…of agreement which was executed on 17th May, 2008. 3. CIT appeals and the Tribunal held the issue in favour of the assessee relying on various judgments of different High Courts including the judgment of this Court in case of CIT v. TATA Services Ltd. [1980] 122 ITR 594/[1999] 1 Taxman 427. Reliance was also placed on CBDT circulars. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we notice that the CBDT in its circular No.471 dated 15th October, 1986 had clarified this position by holding that when an assessee purchases a flat to be constructed by Delhi Development Authority ("D.D.A." for short) for which all…

The ITO, Guntur vs. Alapati Rajendra Prasad, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/VIZ/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Apr 2019AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Alapati Rajendra Prasad, D.No. 4-5-29/85, 4Th Line, Guntur. Vidya Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Aetpa 0460 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal – CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…(Bom.) 305] ii) Ms. Nita A. Pater Vs. ITO [(2011) 7 ITR 659] iii) Praveen Gupta Vs. ACIT [(2011) 137 TTJ 307] iv) Girish C. Bathija Vs. ITO [(2008) 113 TTJ 521] v) CIT Vs. Vijay Flexible Containers [(1990) 186 ITR 693)] vi) CIT Vs. Tata Services Ltd. [(1980) 122 ITR 594] 8. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 9. The assessee is an individual entered into an oral agreement to purchase a site consisting of 5375 sq.yds. along with MTC tiled and ACC structures situated at Kothapet, Guntur. The purchase price was agreed upon by both the parties f…

ACIT-25(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Paras H.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6657/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhacit-25(3), Shri Paras H. Shah R.No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Sashnil, 15 Jaihind Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Society, 12Th N.S. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. Vs. Bandra (East), Pan: Awpps2212K Mumbai-400051. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Ashok Suthar (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Suthar (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT-25(3), Shri Paras H. Shah R.No. 601, C-10, 6th Floor, 2nd Floor, Sashnil, 15 Jaihind Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Society, 12th N.S. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. Vs. Bandra (East), PAN: AWPPS2212K Mumbai-400051. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR) Respondent by : Shri Ashok Suthar (AR) Date of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This app…

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

…Sources”, as the assessing officer took his view that the flat was never transferred in the name of assessee. The assessee filed his reply vide reply dated 10.10.2014. and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. [122 ITR 594] and CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Container [186 ITR 693]. The assessee also made alternative claim vide his application dated 28.01.2015 that he is eligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act even if the right of any property (cancelled property) is not considered as residential property, he is eligible for exemption under section 54F. The r…

Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Arun Gautam Dugganapally, Bangalore

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

ITA 834/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleincome-Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…he beneficial right as per definition of capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act and also right to obtain conveyance of immovable property is capital asset and relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the Page 4 of 6 case of CIT vs. Tata Service Ltd. (122 ITR 594)(Bom) whereas the CIT(A) has also considered the Agreement entered by the assessee and having satisfied that the assessee has held the asset for more than 3 years from the date of agreement dated 21/01/2017, therefore, the asset is a long-term capital asset and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, Revenue h…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(2), Mumbai vs. Keyur Hemant Shah, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6710/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: V. Chandrashekhar and Harshad

Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

…f Rs.2,27,00,000/- as detailed in the deed of transfer dated 02.06.2010. Having taken note to the same and also to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision cited in the 5 Monish Kaan Tahilramani Assessment Year: 2011-12 case of CIT Vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd. 122 ITR 594 and Hon’ble jurisdictional Mumbai ITAT in the case of Vandana Rana Roy Vs CIT(A) (ITA No. 6173/M/2011) and Charanbir Singh Jolly Vs ITO (2006) 5 SOT 89 (Mum), I consider it proper and appropriate to hold that the appellant’s request is justified for making claim of Long Term Capital Hain. Thus, after taking note of the various judicial pronouncem…

M/S. R.C. Narula & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1028/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 48

…version is to b :d upon, then there cannot be any capital gain till the time the assessee receives the entire consideration even though such date may occur after any indefinite period. This view is supported in the decision of CIT vs Tata Services Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom) wherein it was held that "a contract for sate of land is capable of specific performance. It is also assignable. A right to obtain conveyance of immoveable 'property' is clearly 'property' as contemplated by section 2(14)". The assessee's claim is, therefore, rejected. 6(c) The assessee has also made an alternate plea claiming that if one…

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

…the assessee filed a reply which has been extracted by the 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…

Better Option Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 948/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

…and and creation of interest in favour of M/s. Smart Estates Private Limited and is in the nature of transfer contemplated under section 2 (47) of the Act as explained in the decisions reported in Gulshan Malik 223 Taxman 243 (Del); CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. 122 ITR 594 (Bom); CIT vs. Ram Gopal 230 Taxman 205 (Del); CIT vs. Lakshmi Devi 296 ITR 363 (MP); K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT 268 ITR 436 (Mad), and consequently the charging of capital gain in the hands of the assessee without referring to the amount receivable under the Agreement but with reference to the sale price mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour…

Shri. Rajesh Atalram Rupani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3111/MUM/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Atalram Rupani Dcit Circle -23(3) 6Th Floor, Makhija Chamber, Vs. Matru Mandir, 196 Turnover Road, Bandra Grant Road, (W), Mumbai400007 Mumbai-400050 Pan No. Afapr9279R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S. M. Makhija, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S. M. Makhija, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…f account of M/s Satya Realtors as appearing in the books of the assessee filed before the AO (iv) letter of allotment of new flat issued by M/s Raj Laxmi Developers dated 18.10. 2011. Also reliance is place by him on the decision in CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd.122 ITR 594 (Bom.), CIT vs. Vijay flexible Containers 186 ITR 693 (Bom.), Madhu Kanl vs. CIT 225 Taxman 086 (P & H), CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah 262 ITR 657 (Guj.), Jitendra Mohan vs. ITO (11 SOT 594),Shri Khemchand Fagwani vs ITO, Wd 4(1)(3, Mumbai (ITAT- ‘A’ Bench Mumbai in ITA No. 7876/Mum/2010 dated 10.09.2014), ACIT vs. Smt. Vandana Rana Ray (ITAT- Be…

D vs. Dishti Industries Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1277/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 43(1)

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “बी "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे बी बी” पुणे बी पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA No.1277/PUN/20…

M.M. Exports, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 42(1), Kolkata [Merged With Ward - 43(1)], Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 238/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Raja Ram Chowdhury, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 2(47)Section 50(1)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM ] Assessment Year : 2007-08 M.M.Exports -versus- I.T.O., Ward-42(1)[merged Kolkata with ITA-Ward-43(1),Kolkata (PAN:AAFFM 4426 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Raja Ram Chowdhury, CA For the Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 15.01.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2018. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 30.1.2015 of C.I.T- (A)-13, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2007-08. 2. The Assessee is a part…

Matoshree Realtors, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 18(3), Mumbai

ITA 2303/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)

…e asset should be considered from the date of letter dated 25-06-2005. In this regard, he relied upon the following case laws:- Anita D Kayani vs ACIT (2017) 163 ITD 451 (Mum) Ms. Madhu Karva vs CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H) CIT vs Tata Services Ltd (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom) 11. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also carefully considered the case laws relied upon by the parties. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration is – whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, transfer of bo…

Smt Suman Agarwal, Mathura vs. ITO 3(4), Mathura

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 301/AGR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 47Section 50C

…r of attorney holder Sri Anil Kumar Kaushik from the owners of the property through registered power of attorney dated 21.8.2003 and such "right" is capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of Income tax Act as held in CIT vs Tata Services Ltd (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom.). Hence any capital gain arises on transfer of such ‘right’ i.e. capital asset would be taxable in the hands of the power of attorney holder.’ 2. Apropos Ground No. 1, the grievance of the assessee is that the AO did not dispose of the objections filed against the reopening initiated u/s 147 of the IT Act, before passing the assessment or…