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.

Shri Prakash Pillai, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2552/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…14) and 2(47) in the context of a claim of acquisition of rights of property and interest in a capital asset, for the purpose of income tax.” 7. The same is the principle laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd [(1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom)] :- SMC-ITA No. 2552/Ahd/2014 Prakash Pillai Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 4 of 4 “What is a capital asset is defined in section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under that provision, a capital asset means property of any kind held by assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession. The sub- clauses which deal…

ACIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Umashankar P. Mishra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed and the cross appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6167/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5653/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Umashankar P. Mishra, Vs. The Dcit-13(3)(1), 27-B, Gopal Vihar Chawl, Mumbai Navgaon, Dahisar (West), Mumbai - 400068 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2434L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5652/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Vandana Mishra, Vs. The Dcit-13(3)(1), 27-B, Gopal Vihar Chawl, Mumbai Navgaon, Dahisar (West), Mumbai - 400068 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acrom5217G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6167/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) The Acit-13(3)(1), Vs. Shri Umashankar P. Mishra, Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, 27-B, Gopal Vihar Chawl, Aayakar Bhavan, Navgaon, Dahisar (West), M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400068 Mumbai - 400068 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2434L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Sh. B.S. Bist

Section 143Section 54

…of a capital asset comprising of right to acquire property and not building which is residential house, the appellant is not entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed in CIT Vs. Tata Services Ltd. 122 ITR 594 and CIT Vs. Vimal Lalchand Mutha 187 ITR 613 and decision of Mumbai Tribunal rendered in Anita D. Kanjani, [2017]79 taxmann.com 67(Mumbai Tribunal) submitted that as per the settled law holding period in case of under construction property must be reckoned from the date of allotment and the asset/right acquire in under constructions property/buil…

Umashankar Mishra, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed and the cross appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5653/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Sh. B.S. Bist

Section 143Section 54

M/S. Satnam Overseas Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4486/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2010-11 Satnam Overseas Exports, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 201, Vipps Centre, 2- 28, Community Complex, New Delhi. Masjid Moth, Gk-Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aacfs 5863 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Shri Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)- Xix, New Delhi, Vide Order Dated 21.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As Eleven Grounds Of Appeal. As A Matter Of Fact The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Pressed Only Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Which Pertained To One Issue Only & The Said Grounds Are Reproduced Hereinbelow. “3. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That No Cognizance Can Be Taken Of The Claim Made By The Assessee That Sale Of Property Be Treated As Capital Gain & Indexation Benefit Should Be Allowed To The Assessee. The Action Of The Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 4. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessee Did Not Acquire Any Capital Asset & Hence Did Not Acquire Any Rights Over The Property. 5. The Interpretation Given By The Cit(A) Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Contrary To The Judgments & Well Settled Principles Of Law. Moreover The Cit(A) Has Failed To Examine The Material On Record In A Judicious Manner.” 2

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)(ii)

…e for selling of the right, the question arises whether the right to receive in the flat is a property which comes in the ambit of capital asset or not has been scrutinized by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Data Services Ltd. reported in 122 ITR 594 (Bom.). The copy of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said case is placed at paper book pages 8 to 13 and the relevant paragraph read by the learned counsel is reproduced hereinbelow: “What is capital asset is defined in section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under that provision, a capital asset means property of any kind held…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…capital gain on compulsory acquisition of lands and building also includes exemption for interalia transfer of ―any right in land or building‖; f) Further, analogy can be drawn from the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Services Ltd.: 122 ITR 594, wherein it was held that the word ―property‖ of any kind used in section 2(14) of the Act is a word of the widest amplitude and would include any right which can be called ―property‖ in the definition of ―capital asset‖. In that case, the right to obtain conveyance of immoveable property was held to be a capital asset. Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs.…

Kartikeya Kilachand, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 15(1), Mumbai

ITA 1999/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)

…not have been exercised b the assessee in any manner. In suport, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v Vijay Flexible Containers, reported in [1990] 186 ITR 693 and CIT v Tata Services Ltd., reported in [1980] 122 ITR 594. On the second aspect of quantum of capital loss, he submitted that much emphasis has been laid down by the Assessing Officer and by the CIT(A) on the letter dated 05.06.2003 written by the assessee to the builder that, he has received sum of Rs.24,11,458/- on the cancellation of the Flat. He submitted that this letter was merely a formality to f…

Vatsala Shenoy vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016

Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

…wing manner: “16. In the case of Artex Manufacturing Co. this Court found that a valuer was appointed, that valuer submitted his valuation report in which itemized valuation was carried out and on that basis the consideration was fixed at 1 (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bombay) 2 (2008) 13 SCC 94 : 307 ITR 75 Page 14 JUDGMENT 14 Rs.11,50,400. Therefore, the sale consideration had been arrived at after taking into account the value of plant, machinery and dead stock as computed by the valuer and, consequently, it was held that the surplus arising on the sale was taxable under section 41(2) of the Act…

Vatsala Shenoy vs. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016

Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

Ketan Chhotalal Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2901/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2901/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Ketan Chhotalal Sheth, Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 6/12, 1St Floor, Mumbai. V. Bouna Casa, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadps9601E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…treating the asset as short term capital asset and disallowed the indexation of cost because no agreement was entered into between the assessee and the builder, Apex Hotel Enterprises P. Ltd. The assessee relied on the case of CIT v. Tata Tele Services Ltd., 122 ITR 594, Kizhakke Madathil Venkateshwara Iyer, AIR 1917 Mad 358 and others to support the contention that any right in property would be capital asset which is also assignable. Therefore, it was submitted that right to obtain conveyance of immovable property was clearly ‘property’ as contemplated under section 2(14) of the Act. Registration and conveyanc…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Jenifer Noshir Sanjana, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7667/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit – 19(2), Ms. Jenifer Noshir Sanjana, Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, 14, Golden View, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Sunder Nagar Road, Kalina, Lalbaug, Santacruz (E), Parel, Mumbai – 400 098 Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aatps1077L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Jeevan Lal, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal, D.R

Section 54FSection 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT – 19(2), Ms. Jenifer Noshir Sanjana, Room No.322, 3rd Floor, 14, Golden View, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Sunder Nagar Road, Kalina, Lalbaug, Santacruz (E), Parel, Mumbai – 400 098 Mumbai - 400012 PAN: AATPS1077L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Jeevan Lal, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal…

Dhanraj Dhadda & Sons P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7975/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 50C

…ern. The AO held that the right in the shop/parking space is a capital asset and extinguishment thereof shall give rise to capital gains. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case reported in 122 ITR 594 and also the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs.Texspin engg. & Mft Works (263 ITR 345). Since the assessee did not declare any capital gain, the AO referred the matter of ascertaining market value to the DVO, who estimated the market value of office premise at Rs.56.12 lakhs and the market value of car parking spaces at Rs.16.00 lakh (Rs.8.…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263

…sonem capable of transfer or transmission, such as debts, and signifies a beneficial right to or thing considered as having a money value. Further reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Services Ltd., 122 ITR 594, wherein it was held that right to obtain conveyance of immovable property is capital asset. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Devidas Vithaldas & Co., 84 ITR 277, wherein goodwill of a business was held as capital asset. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the…

S. Narendrakumar & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 22(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 7080/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. S. Narendrakumar & Co., Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Krushal Commercial Income Tax, Complex, Circle 22(2), Vs. G.M. Road, Vashi Railway Station Chembur (W), Complex, Tower No.6, 4Th Floor, Vashi, Mumbai – 400 089 Pan: Aaafs 1245B Navi Mumbai – 400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Neil Philip, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Assessee Through Its Grounds Of Appeal Is Relating To The Taxability Of The Income Gained By The Assessee From Transfer Of The Assessee‟S Right In „5 Office Premises‟ As To Whether The Same Are To Be Assessed Under The Head „Long Term Capital Gains‟ Or As „Income From Other Sources‟. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Had Shown Long Term Capital Gains Of 2 M/S. S. Narendrakumar & Co.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh N. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip, D.R

…not registered is an enforceable contract. Therefore, the property is held by the assessee in such a case from the date of booking. The Appellant humbly submits that the contention of the Appellant is supported by the decisions of CIT v. Tata Services Ltd. - 122 ITR 594 (Bom), CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers - 186 ITR 693 (Bom), K. R. Shrinath v. ACIT - 268 ITR 436 (Mad), J.K.Kashyap v. ACIT - 302 ITR 255 (Del), CIT v. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani - 296 ITR 363 (M.P.), ACIT v. Hansaben Mehta - 90 lTD 44 (Mum) and Jagdish Chander Malhotra v. ITO - 64 lTD 251 (Del) which clearly held that even a right/interest in a prop…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5749/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

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

Section 4(1)

…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 5 Vembu Vaidyanathan c. CIT vs Tata Services ltd. 122 ITR 594 d. CIT vs Vijay Flexible Containers 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) 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 (122 ITR 594) (supra):- Quote:- “What is a capita…

Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2389/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

For Appellant: Shri H.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250

…ir options under the ESOS schemes, various contentious issues were raised by the Revenue in the assessment of such employees. Some of these issues reached before the Tribunal and were dealt by various benches of the Tribunal. In the case of Tata Services Ltd. 122 ITR 594, Hon‟ble Bombay High Court got occasion to explain the meaning and scope of the word „property‟ in context of section 2(14). It was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that the word “property”, used in section 2(14), is an expression of widest amplitude as the definition clause has re-emphasised this, by user of the words “..of any kind”. Thus, an…

Sri. Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar, Bagalkot vs. ITO, Bagalkot

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 731/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…acquisition of the asset and the cost of improvement thereto. Capital asset has been defined in Sec.2(14) of the Act to mean property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession. In CIT V/s. Tata Services Limited 122 ITR 594 (Bom.) it was held that the word property u/s.2(14) is of widest amplitude and includes any right which can be included in definition of Capital Asset. In Ponds (India) Ltd. V/s. DCIT 64 ITD 33 (Mum) the ITAT had to decide a case in which by an agreement dated 18.04.81, the assessee agreed to purchase immovable property from ‘K’ and took the pos…