CIT v. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd.

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

…on ITA Nos. 890 1348/Mum/2023 & C.O. 71/Mum/2023 Reliance Power Ltd. 50, by referring and relying upon the decision of jurisdiction High Court in CIT vs Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (2025) 281 ITR 210 and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Dempo Co. Ltd. 387 ITR 354, has held that deeming fiction is only for the purpose of section 50 and all for other provisions including section 74, the asset remains a long term capital asset. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed that assessee is eligible to set off long term capital losses against the gain arising from sale of helicopter even though the said gain is rega…

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

…nn.com 227). For sake of repetition we are not reproducing the relevant judgment as in all these judgments, Ace Builders have been followed. 31. Now, finally this issue has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Dempo Company Ltd 387 ITR 354 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to examine the eligibility of assessee to claim exemption under section 54E of the Act in respect of capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated and affirmed the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case o…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

…made u/s 54E against capital gains taxable u/s 50 on depreciable assets. Similarly in Cadbury India Ltd 229 Taxman 05(Bom), tribunal allowing exemption u/s 54E was upheld. Similardecision was given in Perry(Estern) P.Ltd 384 ITR 264(Bom).In V.S.Dempo Co, Ltd 387 ITR 354,hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the view that deduction u/s 54E is allowable against gains assessable u/s 50 of the Act.\n22. In respect of both the main ground no.1 and alternative ground no.2, we observe that the main reason for denial of deduction by the authorities below is that assessee has not filed revised return of income to make rightful…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

…e u/s 54E against capital gains taxable u/s 50 on\ndepreciable assets. Similarly in Cadbury India Ltd 229 Taxman\n05(Bom), tribunal allowing exemption u/s 54E was upheld.\nSimilardecision was given in Perry(Estern) P.Ltd 384 ITR\n264(Bom).In V.S.Dempo Co, Ltd 387 ITR 354,hon'ble Supreme\nCourt confirmed the view that deduction u/s 54E is allowable against\ngains assessable u/s 50 of the Act.\n22. In respect of both the main ground no.1 and alternative\nground no.2, we observe that the main reason for denial of deduction\nby the authorities below is that assessee has not filed revised return of\nincome to make rig…

PHULCHAND EXPORTS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

…e u/s 54E against capital gains taxable u/s 50 on\ndepreciable assets. Similarly in Cadbury India Ltd 229 Taxman\n05(Bom), tribunal allowing exemption u/s 54E was upheld.\nSimilardecision was given in Perry(Estern) P.Ltd 384 ITR\n264(Bom).In V.S.Dempo Co, Ltd 387 ITR 354,hon'ble Supreme\nCourt confirmed the view that deduction u/s 54E is allowable against\ngains assessable u/s 50 of the Act.\n22. In respect of both the main ground no.1 and alternative\nground no.2, we observe that the main reason for denial of deduction\nby the authorities below is that assessee has not filed revised return of\nincome to make rig…

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

…he rate applicable for a short term capital\ngain. The relevant extract of the said decision is cited herein under for ease of reference:\n“31. Now, finally this issue has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT\nvs. Dempo Company Ltd 387 ITR 354 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to\nexamine the eligibility of assessee to claim exemption under section 54E of the Act in respect of\ncapital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed. The\nHon'ble Apex Court reiterated and affirmed the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the\nca…

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5th Floor, Room No. 204, 2nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABPP6359C Assessee by : Shri K Gopal, AR : Shri R.R. Makwana, DR Revenue by Date of hearing: 13.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 12.07.2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by Ms. Sonia Patha…

DCIT 13(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S WALL STREET FINANCE LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…d upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s ACE Builders Pvt. Ltd., [2006] 281 ITR Wall Street Finance Ltd. ITA No.2175/Mum./2019 210 (Bom.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s V.S. Dempo Company Ltd., [2016] 387 ITR 354 (SC)in support of its submissions. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions filed by the assessee and treated the income from long term capital gain of Rs.2,66,47,393, as income from short term capital gain under section 50 of the Act and disallowed set–off of car…

DY CIT - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S VOLTAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 8(3)(1) V. M/S. Voltas Limited Room No. 615 Voltas House, A Block Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Rod Mumbai - 400020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033 Pan: Aaacv2809D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By : Shri Milind Chavan

…fficer and he relied on the order of CIT v. Sakthi Metal Depot [(2010) 89 taxman 329 (Kerala)] and requested that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set-aside. 5. In the rejoinder Ld. AR of the assessee relying on the order of the CIT v. V.S. Dempo company Ltd., (387 ITR 354) submitted that deeming provision of this section 50 cannot be extended beyond the method of computation of cost of acquisition involved. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that similar issue was considered and adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2013-14 and decided…

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VOLTAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

…l gain’, there cannot be any dispute about the rate of tax applicable for short term capital gain. 33. In rejoinder learned Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd. (387 ITR 354) and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Manali Investment (ITA No. 1658 of 2012). He submitted that both Courts have considered this issue and have found that deeming provision of this section cannot be extended beyond the method of computation of cost of acquisition involved. 34. We have considered the submissions and…

M/S. DEEPAK FERTILIZERS & PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-4, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S Deepak Fertilizers & Principal Commissioner Of Petrochemicals Corporation Income- Tax (Central)- 4 Limited, 10B, Bhakatwar, 10Th Floor, Room No. 1001, Vs Nariman Point, Cgo Bldg. Annexe, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai 400 020

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.2646/Mum/2018 AY. 2013-14 M/s Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member M/s Deepak Fertilizers & Principal Commissioner of Petrochemicals Corporation Income- tax (Central)- 4 Limited, 10B, Bhakatwar, 10th Floor, Room No. 1001, Vs Nariman Point, CGO Bldg. Annexe, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400021 Mumbai 400 020 PAN – AAACD1388D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shrim H.P. Mahajani, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Manjunath Swam…

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “H” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ DCIT, CC 3(2) CEN RG 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19th floor, C/o M/s. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, v. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AABPP2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR Assessee by : Shri. Vi…

PARVINCHAND N. SEHGAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

…, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063. At the very outset, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the case of assessee has duly been covered by decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 354 (SC). Wherein it is held that deeming fiction created in 50(1) & (2) of the Act is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in sec. 48 & 49. Further, it is well established in law that a fiction created by the legislature has to be confined for the purpose for which it is created. Further Section 50-E doesn’t make any…

ABHIDEEP CHEMICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Abhideep Chemicals Vs. Pr Cit – 14, Mumbai – 400 Pvt. Ltd., 503, Keshava Bkc 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5336N Appellant) .. Respondent)

…Ltd. 281 ITR 210 holding that benefit under section 54 EC can be claimed in respect of capital gain computed under section 50 where the assets are long term. The said decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. V. S. Dempo Co. Ltd. 387 ITR 354. He further contended that the issue 5 M/s. Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., with regard to applicability of Section 50 C to the depreciable assets remains debatable till the issue is finally settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is very likely that this issue may be pending for final hearing at the High Court stage in India and therefor…