CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha

201 ITR 442High Court1993#7042 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)(v)section 53asection 53period of holdingjoint development agreementjdasection 2(47)section 54short term capital gainlong term capital gaintransferperson

Judgments citing CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha

VIDYAVATHI MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 295/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

…independent, identifiable asset and continues to remain as an identifiable capital asset even after construction of a building thereon. Identical views were taken by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Vimal Chand Golecha reported in [1993]201 ITR 442 and by theITAT, Calcutta in the case of CIT vs Sri Sekhar Gupta[2001]114 Taxmann 122. However 12 in order to claim the above capital gains separately for land and building, the assessee is required to give basic details like the original cost of acquisition of land and building, the year acquisition etc separately duly supported by necessary doc…

SIVAKAMA SUNDAR MANTHRAVADI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(IT AND TP), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 292/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.292/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2013-14) Sivakama Sundar Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1372 N Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.295/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vidyavathi Manthravadi, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax United Kingdom. (It & Tp), Pan: Avspm 1370 Q Hyderabad. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessees By : Ms. P. Chandini, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54Section 54E

…independent, identifiable asset and continues to remain as an identifiable capital asset even after construction of a building thereon. Identical views were taken by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Vimal Chand Golecha reported in [1993]201 ITR 442 and by theITAT, Calcutta in the case of CIT vs Sri Sekhar Gupta[2001]114 Taxmann 122. However 12 in order to claim the above capital gains separately for land and building, the assessee is required to give basic details like the original cost of acquisition of land and building, the year acquisition etc separately duly supported by necessary doc…

M/S.KERALA FEEDS LTD,THRISSUR vs. ITO, TRICHUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kerala Feeds Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Department, Kallettumkara, Irinjalakunda, National Faceless Appeal Thrissur – 680 683. Centre (Nfac). Pan : Aaack 9796 N Ito (Tds), Thrissur. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. C. V. Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR
Section 201(1)

…). Further, as per the Income-tax Act, the land and the building are 3) separate assets as per the following decisions. Therefore, if an employee had availed housing loan; he is eligible for deduction for the interest paid. CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha (1993) 201 ITR 442 (Raj) CIT vs. Dr. D.L. Ramachandra Rao (1999) 236 ITR 51 (Mad) CIT vs. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon (2003) 264 ITR 76 (Ker) CIT vs. A.S. Aulakh (2008) 304 ITR 27 (P & H) CIT vs. Citi Bank N. A (2003) 261 ITR 570 (Born) 2. The assessee is a Government of Kerala Public Sector undertaking manufacturing cattle feeds. An inspection was conducted on 22.0…

SMT. SEEMA SHAH,VARANASI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 211/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi27 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Seema Shah, Income Tax Officer, B-37/1F 2Kh, Haijnatha, Ward –2(2) V. Birdopur, Varanasi, U.P. Varanasi- 221010,Uttar Pradesh Pan:Aqpps9465C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…Year: 2014-15 Smt. Seema Shah v. ITO relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble High Court, as detailed hereunder:- a) C.N.Ananthram v. ACIT in ITA no. 1012/2008(Kar. HC) b) CIT v. Dr. D L RamachandraRao 236 ITR 51(Mds.) c) CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha 201 ITR 442(Raj.) d) CIT v. C.R.Subramanian 242 ITR 342(Kar.) Thus, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order passed by the AO, and held that benefit of deduction u/s 54 cannot be allowed on short term capital gains arising from sale of building/house(excluding land) which was a short term capital asset held by the assessee. 6. The assesseestill being aggri…

SHEHROZ ZAKIR HUSAIN MALIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 26(3)(20, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3243/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late Sh. Shehrozzakir Husain Malik Income Tax Officer-26(3)(2), Through Legal Heir Shahbazshehroz Malik, Pratyakshakar, C-11, 1307, Rcs & Associates Mayuresh Cosmos Vs. Bandrakurla Complex, Tower, Sarovarvihar Road, Sector-11, Cbd Bandra East, Belapur, Mumbai-400051. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan No. Aagpm 4512 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neeraj Mangla, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Mangla, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 54

…cord. It is pertinent to note that the land can be bifurcated into building which can be offered for short term capital gain and the actual land as long term capital gain. The decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha 201 ITR 442 has given a clear indication that this is possible. As per the submissions of the Ld. AR assessee never Late Sh. Shehroz Zakir Husain Malik 12 seized the his rights in existing building/structure which was demolished and it is relevant that the land was very much in existence. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have taken the value of land…

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI SUNIL DUTT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2972/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ed upon the following case laws and supported the findings of Ld. CIT(A):- 1. 261 ITR 570 (Bom) CITv Citibank N. A. 2. 335 ITR 60 (Bom) CIT v Hindustan Hotels Ltd. 3. 236 ITR 51 (Mad) CIT v Eh-. D L Ramachandra Rao 4. 304 ITR 27 (P&H) CIT v A S Aulakh 5. 201 ITR 442 (Raj) CIT v Vimal Chand Golecha 31 I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 & 1112/Mum/2013 Legal Heirs of Late Shri Sunil Dutt, 6. 242 ITR 342 (Kar) CIT v C R Subramaman 7. 254 ITR 152 (Cal) CITv Estate of Omprakash Jhunjhunwala 8. 264 ITR 76 (Ker) CIT v Smt. Lakshmi B Memon 9. 137 ITD 376 (Mum-Trib) Asst. CIT v Jaimal K Shah 10. 176 TTJ 699 (Mum-Trib) DCI…

M/S HIRSCH BRACELET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3392/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.S.V.S. Pavan Kumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32(2)Section 50

…y to the aforesaid provisions are unsustainable and are hereby vacated. The ld. counsel for the Page 12 of 13 assessee has in this regard rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha [1993] 201 ITR 442 (RAJ.) wherein it was held that when price of two capital assets is charged at one consolidated price, where a gain from one of capital assets was a short-term capital gain while from other it was a long term capital gain, then the assessee is entitled to bifurcate the same and benefit to assessee could not be denied in respect of gain arising fr…

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (Jt.CIT)
Section 2Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…perty which comprises of land and construction thereon, such consideration has to be reasonably apportioned between the land and the construction as these are two separate assets as held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha 201 ITR 442 (Raj.) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Citibank N.A. 261 ITR 570 (Bom). Accordingly, the assessee has correctly bifurcated the actual sale consideration of Rs.9.90 crores towards the value of land at Rs.9,49,78,226/-, value of boundary at Rs.18,76,828/- and value of building at Rs.21,44,946/- on the basis of value evaluated by…

MESERS EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD,PATHANKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 561/ASR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…gain on land separately. That land is a separate asset from the structure thereon or the plant attached thereto, is well-settled (CIT vs. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC);. CIT vs. Citibank N. A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom); CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha [1993] 201 ITR 442 (Raj)). Further, it may also be that the ld. CIT(A) considers so as land, if regarded as part of the units sold, would be subject to provision of section 50B, in which case no indexation benefit would be available to the assessee and, two, only the net worth, as certified by an Accountant, of the relevant undertaking (i.e., excluding the plant an…

M/S EMBROCIA FARMS PVT LTD. ,PATHANKOT vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-6,, PATHANKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is (in ITA No

ITA 284/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. Nos. 561/Asr/2018 & 284/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Tarsem Lal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…gain on land separately. That land is a separate asset from the structure thereon or the plant attached thereto, is well-settled (CIT vs. Alps Theatre [1967] 65 ITR 377 (SC);. CIT vs. Citibank N. A. [2003] 261 ITR 570 (Bom); CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha [1993] 201 ITR 442 (Raj)). Further, it may also be that the ld. CIT(A) considers so as land, if regarded as part of the units sold, would be subject to provision of section 50B, in which case no indexation benefit would be available to the assessee and, two, only the net worth, as certified by an Accountant, of the relevant undertaking (i.e., excluding the plant an…

SHYAMALA PICTURES AND HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1185/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 04.07.2017
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 28

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘C’, CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1185/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shyamala Pictures and Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of Income Shyamala Towers, 136, Arcot Road, Vs. Tax, Saligramam, Media Range, Chennai - 600 093. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AABCS 0267K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri A…

MADHU C. GANWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered

ITA 8891/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kr. Rai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…f the law settled in CIT Vs. Hindustan Hotels Ltd. 335 ITR 60 Hon’ble Bombay High Court and CIT Vs. Smt. Lakshmi B. Menon 264 ITR 76 Hon’ble Kerela High Court and CIT Vs. C.R.Subramanian 242 ITR 342 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Golecha 201 ITR 442 Hon’ble Rajastan High Court which has not been considered by the Assessing Officer, therefore the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand the learned departmental representative has strongly relied upon the order passed by the…

JASWANT RAI ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2907/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Sh.Jaswant Rai Arora Vs. Acit, Central Range 34 Hcmr Complex New Delhi Vill. Mandoli Delhi 110 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Raj Kumar Gupta & Sh.Sumit Goel, Cas Respondent By : Ms.Rishpal Bedi, Sr.D.R. Order

For Appellant: Sh.Raj Kumar Gupta and Sh.Sumit Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Ms.Rishpal Bedi, Sr.D.R
Section 50C

…f his contention that land and building should be valued separately and that the capital gain on each of these assets should be computed separately. (i) CIT vs. Dr.D.L.Ramchandra Rao reported in 236 ITR 51 (Madras) (ii) CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha reported in 201 ITR 442 (Raj.) (iii) CIT vs. Citi Bank N.A. reported in 261 ITR 570 (Bom.) Thus, we direct the AO to consider the valuation of land separately from the value adopted for the building, by following the proposition laid down in these case laws. 5.2. We have already extracted from the Ld.CIT(A)’s order on the values of both the properties. For ready refere…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. FIROZ TIN FACTORY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6756/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

Section 143(1)Section 50

…of Hon 'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Hotels & Anr. 335 ITR 60 (BOM.) which are reproduced below: “ACIT V. Hindustan Hotels Ltd. & Anr. 335 ITR 60 (Born.): At para 10 the High Court observed that the decision in CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha (1993) 201 ITR 442 (Raj.) therein that the Rajasthan High Court has followed the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT V/s Dr. D.L. Ramchandra Rao (supra) and has held that if the price for two capital assets has been charged as one consolidated price, then the assessee is entitled to bifurcate the same. As the situation may arise, where again from one of the ca…

FIROZ TIN FACTORY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6224/MUM/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Sanjay Garg, (Jm) सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एर्ुं श्री संजम गगग, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6224/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Firoz Tin Factory, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं /I.T.A. No.6756/Mum/2012 (ननधधगयण वषग / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ M/S Firoz Tin Factory, Asstt. Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Rock Cliff, Income Tax 19(3), Vs. Opp Joggers Park, Piramal Chambers, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan :Aaaff6356L अऩीरधथी ओय से / Assessee By Shri Girish Dave प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By Shri G M Doss सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2015 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran:

Section 143(1)Section 50

…of Hon 'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Hotels & Anr. 335 ITR 60 (BOM.) which are reproduced below: “ACIT V. Hindustan Hotels Ltd. & Anr. 335 ITR 60 (Born.): At para 10 the High Court observed that the decision in CIT v. Vimal Chand Golecha (1993) 201 ITR 442 (Raj.) therein that the Rajasthan High Court has followed the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT V/s Dr. D.L. Ramchandra Rao (supra) and has held that if the price for two capital assets has been charged as one consolidated price, then the assessee is entitled to bifurcate the same. As the situation may arise, where again from one of the ca…

DCIT - 20(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. J.B. ENGG. WORKS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-20(1) J.B. Eng. Works Room No.603, 6Th Flr, 797, Jesia Bldg. Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel Jamshed Road, Parsi Vs. Mumbai-400012 Colony, Dadar (E) Mumbai -400014 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafj5106C Revenue By Shri S. S. Kumaran (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Mr. Percy Pardiwalla,Sr. Advocate & Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)

…T 80 ITD 251 (Delhi). Further, it was also submitted that land is a capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this context, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha 201 ITR 442, it was argued that for the purpose of section 32, building which is entitled for depreciation, would mean only the superstructure and not the land. On the question that why the land was not shown as fixed asset, it was stated that it was so because the land had been taken on lease. Elaborating further, it was submitted that what the assessee had…