How many judgments cite CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF)?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) (207 ITR 148), spanning 2014 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 2(47), Section 234, Section 270A.

CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF)

207 ITR 148High Court1994#5110 most cited

What is CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) authority for?

A person is considered to be 'holding' property for the purpose of capital gains tax if they possess it as an owner, lessee, mortgagee, or under an agreement for sale, not solely as the legal owner.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) · 207 ITR 148 · section 2(42A) · holding property · owner · lessee · mortgagee · agreement for sale · capital gains tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 2(47)Section 234 Section 270A Section 54 Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

transfer document

Judgments citing CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF)

Mohammed Farhan Mohammed Yunus Attarwala, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(2)(1), NFAC Delhi, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6819/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: 18.02.2025

Section 234Section 270A

…rther, Hon'ble High Court dealt with the issue on the meaning to be assigned to the word "held" occurring in section 2(42A) of the Act. For this, the Hon'ble Court relied on another decision in the case of CIT v. Ved Prakash and Sons (HUF) [1993] 73 Taxman 70/207 ITR 148 (Punjab & Haryana) wherein, it was observed as under: "As is clear from a bear reading of section 2 (42A) of the Act, the word "owner" has designly not been used by the legislature. The word "hold", Mohammed Farhan Mohammed Yunus Attarwala. as per dictionary meaning, means to possess, be the owner, Holder or tenant (property, stock, land). Thus,…

Bushra Javed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2003/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Bushra Javed, Vs. Acit, D-112, Circle Int. Taxation 2 Lower Ground Floor, (1)(1) Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110 017 Pan Afgpj3907C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 48

…were brought on record. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. 226 ITR 625 (SC) and Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC); decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in CIT vs. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Frick India Ltd. 369 ITR 328. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. AO and submitted that the agreement to sale is not in the name of the assessee. It was in the year 2010 that first time the assessee’s name appeared as co-owner in the sale deed. The Ld. AR refuted this allegation…

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

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

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…re not examining rights of a rank trespasser in the present decision and we express no opinion in that regard). 13. The Tribunal in our opinion has rightly relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) [1994] 207 ITR 148/73 Taxman 70 in which it has been held as under:- ‘As is clear from a bare reading of Section 2(42A) of the Act, the word “owner” has designedly not been used by the Legislature. The word “hold”, as per dictionary meaning, means to possess, be the owner, holder or tenant of (property, stock, land.). Thus, a person can be said to be holding the pr…

Shri.Suresh Nagaraja Rao Kestur, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Likith R Prakash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, ACIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…Court in case of Naveen Jindal vs ACIT reported in (2010) 320 ITR 708;  Decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Ramar rani Kalia reported in (2013) 358 ITR 499;  Decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148  Decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs Suresh Chand Goyal reported in (2008) 298 ITR 277  Decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Manna Lal Nirmal Kumar Surana reported in (2003) 264 ITR 116 3.5 On the contrary, the Ld.Sr.DR submitted that the transaction was in the nature of business activity carrie…

Shri Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Surat

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 961/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Himmatbhai Mohanbhai Kheni, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 410, Kashi Plaza, Majura Gate, Income Tax, Circle-(9), Surat Surat. [Pan: Abqpk7840K] Appellant Respondednt

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

…e stamp paper from stamp vendor. 4. In support of his submission about the plea of qualifying period of long term capital gain, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) [207 ITR 148 (P&H)], wherein it was held that when the assessee in that case purchased property under agreement dated 29.05.1970 on the installment basis and was put in possession and to tax thereon being beneficial owner, and sale of the property on 10.02.1973 on the date of final installment, gave rise to long term capital gain. 5. On the other hand, the l…

Jhonson Electric Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara

ITA 754/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.754/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Jhonson Electric Company Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1(1)(3), Vadodara – 390007. C/O. C.K.Pithawala Bhimpore, Post: Dumas Dist: Surat. [Pan: Aaacj 4908 P अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Sh. Saurabh Soparkar With Sh. Mayur K. Swadia Ars. राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2020 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 22.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara Dated 17.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Facts “1. & In Law In Treating Long Term Capital Gain As Short Term Capital Gain. 2. Your Appellant Craves The Right To Add To Or Alter, Amend, Substitute, Delete Or Modify All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50C

…the following decisions;  Rustom Spinners Ltd Vs CIT (198 ITR 351 Gujarat High Court),  CIT Vs H. Anil Kumar [2012] 20 taxmann.com 530( Karnataka),  Chandrasekhar Naganagouda Patil Vs DCIT 183 ITD 457 ( Bangalore –Trib) and  CIT Vs Vedprakash & sons (HUF)207 ITR 148 (P& H). . Johnson Electric Co. Ltd., Vs. ITO ITA No.754/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 11. On the other hand, the DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR for the revenue further submitted that assessee entered into agreement of sale of land with two share holders of land on 06.04.1993, registered on 12.04.1993 for sale consi…

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

ITA 4933/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Sinha (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)

Section 143

…ment then the indexation may be granted from the date of agreement and if not, then from 29/10/2005, the date when the first payment of Rs.5 lakh was made by the assessee towards the purchase of the flat. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148 (P & H) (Para-3), CIT vs R.R. Sood (1986) 161 ITR 92; 24 taxman 498 (Bom.)(para-3), CIT vs Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd. (1997) (226 ITR 625 (SC)(para-9) and CIT vs Ms. Piroja C. Patel (2000) 242 ITR 582(Bom.)(Para-3) supports the case of the assessee. In the case of Ms. Nita A. Patel, it was held that the assets which are referred under the capital ga…

Suresh Brotehrs, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 553/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Suresh Brothers Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 511, Panchratna, 14, Tax-16(3), Income-Tax Office, Mama Parmanand Marg, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Opera House,Mumbai 400004 Tardeo Road,Mumbai – 400007

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani &For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…Agreement signed by the assessee on 16.12.2010. 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the ration applied by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. R.R. Sood [1986] 161 ITR 92.? 7. The appellant craves leave to amend alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 553/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 M/s Suresh Brothers Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax-16(3) 8. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3.…

Mahendra Kumar M.Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4753/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mahendra Kumar M. Acit-18(2) Erstwhile Jain 1, Lawyers Chambers, Vs. Acit-14(3), Mumbai. Fr. Floor, Picket Rd, Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aacpj5382N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mani Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mahendra Kumar M. ACIT-18(2) Erstwhile Jain 1, Lawyers Chambers, Vs. ACIT-14(3), Mumbai. Fr. Floor, Picket RD, Mumbai-400002. PAN No. AACPJ5382N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Mani Jain, AR Revenue by : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR Date of Hearing : 20/02/2019 Date of pronouncement: 16/05/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed aga…

The DCIT-3(1), Indore vs. Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

ITA 254/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 53ASection 54F

…igned by the parties; it should be in writing; it should pertain :c transfer of property and the transferee should have taken possession of We property. In the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in CIT Vs. Ved Parkash and Sons (HUF) [1994J 207 ITR 148, the decisions or the Rajasthan High Court reported in CIT Vs. Vishnu Trading and Investment Co. [2003] 259 ITR 724 and CIT Vs. Rajasthan Mirror Manufacturing CO. [2003J 260 ITR 503 as well as the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in M. Syamala Rao Vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 140, it is held that the capital gain arising on the transf…

Vijay Rangroo, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3063/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Milind Bakhai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgutra (DR)

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

…e flat having been sold on 6-1-1989, was a long-term capital gain; and consequently, whether the assessee was entitled to set off the same under section 54 of the Act. 8. The assessee relied upon judgment of this Court in CIT v. Ved Parkash & Sons (HUF)[1994] 207 ITR 148 and Circular No. 471, dated 15-10-1986 [162 ITR (St.) 41] to contend that allottee gets title to the property with the issuance of allotment letter and payment of instalments is only a follow-up action and taking of the delivery of possession is only a formality and no right as such accrues thereon. According to the assessee, the transaction stoo…

Ramesh A Radhakrishnan, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 35(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1244/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Hiro Rai, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

…g the holding period. The term "held" has been interpreted by the Courts wherein unanimous view has been that the said term 'held' is different from the term 'acquire'. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of CIT Vs. Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148, stated that the term 'held' is deliberately used as against term 'owned'. Hence, a person can hold the asset as owner, lessee, tenant, etc. Therefore, the right to the property is held by a person from the date when he enters into an agreement for purchase and not when he acquires possession. A similar phrase has been used in the Explanation (ii…

M C Sathyanarayana Gowda, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 1057/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri M.C.Sathyanarayana Gowda, By L/R Smt.Bindu Latha, No.59, Sunkenahalli Main Road, Bull Temple Road, Bengaluru-560019. … Appellant Pan:Agipg 5272 G Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.E.Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 54F

…e of Shakuntala (ITA No.1707 of 2006). He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M.Syamal Rao vs. CIT (234 ITR140), Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Ved Prakash & Sons (207 ITR 148) in support of the contention that the subsequent event of Page 5 of 6 registration of sale deed is not relevant. It is only the date of agreement which is material for the purpose of reckoning the holding period of the assessee to determine whether the asset is short or long term. The ld. AR further submitted that once the gains arising out of e…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Michelle N. Sanghvi, Mumbai

ITA 3973/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumaracit, Circle - 21(2) Shri Michelle N. Sanghvi Room No. 115, 1St Floor 402, Kewal Indl. Estate Piramal Chambers Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Parel, Mumbai 400012 Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 Pan – Arsps1466M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi NingeshenFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Sagar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

…0.1996 issued by the CBDT. The Court held that the right of the assessee prior to 15.05.1986 under the letter of allotment were rights in the property that were transferred. The Court also relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons. (HUF) 207 ITR 148 (P & H) and CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain 217 ITR 363 (Bom.). The Court upheld the contention of the assessee that for the purpose of s. 2(14) and s. 2(42A) what was relevant was the holding of the property as signified by the term 'held' used in both the provisions and not the ownership of the property which was distinct and different. For the purpo…

Paradise Textiles P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4473/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 53A

…ment to sell dated 2.11.2007 in favour of Smt. Srilekha Nayak, thus making his booking rights a long-term capital asset, held for a period of 39 months and 2 days. Alternatively, the appellant submits placing reliance on CIT v. Ved Parkash & Sons (HUF) [1994] 207 ITR 14873 Taxman 70 (Punj. & Har.) that rights in the apartment were acquired on the date of receipt of allotment letter i.e. 6.8.2004, by which the apartment was provisionally allotted to him, which rights were sold on 2.11.2007 thus making his right in the apartment a long-term capital asset. The two grounds for this submission are first, that Section…

Paradise Textiles P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 5(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 389/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 53A

ACIT, Cir-22, Kolkata vs. Mrs Sheela Chopra, Kolkata

ITA 169/KOL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…al asset and the investing of sale proceeds thereof for the purchase of another house was exempted under s. 54.—CIT vs. Ved ITA No.169/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 ACIT, Cir-22, Kol. Vs. Mrs Sheela Chopra Page 7 Parkash & Sons (HUF) (1993) 115 CTR (P&H) 63 : (1994) 207 ITR 148 (P&H) followed.” Taking a consistent view and relying on the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and facts of the present case, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). In the instant case letter of allotment is on 28.09.2000 and accordingly the right was acquired on that date. The assessee sold the property which was acquired by…

Ghanshyam Harjivandas Patadia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3643/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3643/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 Mr. Ghanshyam The Ito-25(3)(1), बनाम/ Harjivandas Patadia, Mumbai Vs. C/O Sweet Home Developers Pvt. Ltd., 193, Bubna House, 1St Floor, S.V. Road, Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpp 4713A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148

…ent to sell would not constitute a sale. - (1957) 32 ITR 190 (SC) Provident Investment Co. Ltd. (1985) 152 ITR 744 (Mad) Jayalakshmi Rajendran All that the intended Purchaser acquires under such agreement is an equity to obtain specific performance. (1986) 161 ITR 92 (Bom) R.R. Sood 9 Delivery of possession of immovable property cannot by itself be treated as equivalent to conveyance of the 'immovable property and title to land and building and plant and machinery cannot pass to the buyer till conveyance is executed and registered:- (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC) Alapati Venkatararamiah Mere delivery of possession…

Sneha Bimal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5489/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263

…upport of this the ld.AR relied on the following case laws: a) Smt.Lata G Rohra V/s DCIT – (2008) 21 SOT 541 (Mum); b) Ms.Madhu Kaul V/s CIT –(2014) 263 ITR 54 (P&H); Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT -344 ITR 501 (P&H); c) d) CIT V/s Ved Parkash And Sons (Huf) (1994) 207 ITR 148 P H, ; e) ACIT V/s Sanjay Kumath (2014) 63 SOT 90 (Indore) f) Charanbir Singh Jolly V/s ITO (2006) 5 SOT 89 (MUM) g) CIT V/s K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59(Del) 7 5489/Mum/2015 7. The lf. AR finally prayed that since the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in view of the facts that the AO…

Stewarts & Lloyds of India Limited, Kolkata vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kol - I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2004-05 Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd. -Versus- C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaecs 0445G) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, ACA & Shri Prakash Singh,ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the assessee was put in possession of the property.…..” The Assessee also placed reliance on the following other decisions laying down identical proposition as laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court referred to above, viz., CIT Vs. Ved Praksh & Sons (HUF) 207 ITR 148 (P & H) and Griipwell Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO 99 ITD 368 (Mum). 9. The CIT however did not agree with the aforesaid contention put forth by the Assessee. He held that the words “held by an Assessee” would mean de jure ownership and such ownership was acquired by the Assessee only on 19.4.1994 when a registered conveyance was executed in its favo…