CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Kaushal Yashwant Agarwal, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 999/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 8(4), Mumbai (Appellant) Vs. Kekin Kunverji Chheda PremBhavan, 234-36, NarshiNatha Streebhat Bazar, Chinch bunder Mumbai – 400009 (PAN: AAAPC6005F) (Respondent) ITA No. 967/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai (Appellant) Vs. Kaushal Yashwant Agarwal, 2 Ocean House, Thakurdwar Road, Karelwadi, Mumbai - 400002 (PAN: A…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

…The Commissioner exercising his powers under section 263 passed a revisional order holding that while making the assessment, the Assessing Officer failed to consider the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers [1990] 186 ITR 693/48 Taxman 86 and, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble High Court observed and held as under:- “23. The question of law was, "whether the right conferred upon the Assessee by the sale agreement of "property of any kind?" It is in that context that the…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

…The Commissioner exercising his powers under section 263 passed a revisional order holding that while making the assessment, the Assessing Officer failed to consider the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers [1990] 186 ITR 693/48 Taxman 86 and, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble High Court observed and held as under:- “23. The question of law was, "whether the right conferred upon the Assessee by the sale agreement of "property of any kind?" It is in that context that the…

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Rasik Kunverji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

…The Commissioner exercising his powers under section 263 passed a revisional order holding that while making the assessment, the Assessing Officer failed to consider the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers [1990] 186 ITR 693/48 Taxman 86 and, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble High Court observed and held as under:- “23. The question of law was, "whether the right conferred upon the Assessee by the sale agreement of "property of any kind?" It is in that context that the…

DCIT, Mum vs. Shelter Developers, Mum

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

…s on account of giving up the 'right to sue' against the landlords M/s. Estate Investments Pvt. Ltd., 24. Before us ld. CIT DR had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Flexi Containers (Bom) reported in (1990) 186 ITR 693. 25. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Flexi Containers related to specific performance of the contract and it was not the case of compensation on account of right to sue. The right to sue is a capital receipt and in support he strongly relied upon the…

Virendra Bhavanji Gala, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

…ow-cause notice, ld. PCIT held that the ld. AO accepting the claim of the assessee in his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 24/02/2021 was passed ignoring the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Flexi Containers (Bom) reported in (1990) 186 ITR 693 which makes assessment order passed by the ld. AO erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per clause (d) of Explanation 2 to Section 263. He further observed that in another similar matter with same kind of transaction with the same builder, in the case of Kaushal Agarwal who has also booked commercial space of 25,000…

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/

…ified 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 (122 ITR 594) (supra):- Quote:- “What is a capita…

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

In the result, ground no.1

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

…w of the matter, CIT appeals of the Tribunal correctly held that the assessee had acquired the property in question on 31st December, 2004 on which the allotment letter was issued. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Vijay flexibl Container (186 ITR 693) while considering the question "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1 lakh, being the compensation received by the assessee from B.V. Dhuru, cannot be treated as 'capital gains' in the hands of the assessee" passed the following order : “3. Sec…

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

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

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

…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 facts of the present case as the facts of these cases are di…