CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others

268 ITR 436High Court2004#5890 most cited

What is CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others authority for?

Development agreements do not constitute a transfer of ownership of immovable property, and stamp duty valuation provisions are inapplicable to them.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

K.R. Srinath v. ACIT · 268 ITR 436 · development agreement · transfer of ownership · stamp duty valuation · immovable property · developer rights

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunalsection 293section 65asection 65b(4)section 153b(1)(b)section 74section 2(28a)section 73section 153(2a)section 153b(1)project completion methodinadequate enquiry

Judgments citing CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others

B.R. CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 2534/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…uty valuation is irrelevant for such agreements where the appellant, as a developer, is not acquiring ownership but development rights. Page 3 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 2534/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 B.R. Construction. Case Law References K.R. Srinath v. ACIT (268 ITR 436) Held that development agreements do not constitute transfer of ownership of immovable property. DCIT v. Shailesh S. Shah (ITA No. 512/Mum/2015) Reinforced that stamp duty valuation provisions apply only to transfers of immovable property and not to development rights agreements. Md. Salim & Ors. vs. Abdul Hafiz & Anr. (C.O. No. 4244 of 2019, Cal…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ITC LIMITED

Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

ITA/125/2018HC Calcutta27 Jun 2024

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

…A.F.R Page 1 of 77 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 15.05.2024 DELIVERED ON: 27.06.2024 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ ITA 125 of 2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. ITC LIMITED Appearance: Mr. Omnarayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …..for the Appellant Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv.…

DCIT, NCC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KEEZHAYUR SOWRIRAJAN SREENIVASAN,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2369/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. K.Senguttuvan, Advocate &
Section 54F

…54F of the Act should be allowed. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of K.R.Srinath Vs ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436 (Mad) held that the Assessing Officer has rejected claim of the assessee on the basis of certain assumptions and doubts about MOU between the parties, however, failed to give any valid reason for not considering transaction of the assessee within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned CIT(A) further observed that…

ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR NAGANAGOUDA PATIL,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1984/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Mallaha Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT

…ices Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom), CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom), CIT vs. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla & Ors. (1992) 195 ITR 28 (Bom), Rustom Spinners Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Ors. (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) and CIT vs. J. Dalmia (1984) 149 ITR 215 (Del). 7. The ld. CIT(A) however, confirmed the order of the AO by observing that in the case before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court the Assessee had given up right for specific performance whereas in the case of the Assessee in this appeal, the Assessee did not file any suit for specific performanc…

SHRI. DEV KUMAR ROY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2250/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

…ices Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom), CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom), CIT vs. Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla & Ors. (1992) 195 ITR 28 (Bom), Rustom Spinners Ltd. vs. CIT (1992) 198 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Ors. (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) and CIT vs. J. Dalmia (1984) 149 ITR 215 (Del). 12. The Assessee also contended that the single or isolated transaction of relinquishment of right under an agreement to acquire immovable property cannot be regarded as adventure in the nature of trade. In this regard the Assessee pointed out before CIT(A) that it had never indulged in any tr…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5460/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…th Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436. Ld. AR of the appellant contended that merely because of the fact that the land was sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the said transaction would be taxable as ‘business income’ citing the case of Constructions Co. vs. ITO, Ward 4(2) [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad-Trib). Ld. AR cited another case of Hyderabad ITAT…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 5348/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…th Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436. Ld. AR of the appellant contended that merely because of the fact that the land was sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the said transaction would be taxable as ‘business income’ citing the case of Constructions Co. vs. ITO, Ward 4(2) [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad-Trib). Ld. AR cited another case of Hyderabad ITAT…

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4136/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…th Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436. Ld. AR of the appellant contended that merely because of the fact that the land was sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the said transaction would be taxable as ‘business income’ citing the case of Constructions Co. vs. ITO, Ward 4(2) [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad-Trib). Ld. AR cited another case of Hyderabad ITAT…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2802/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 40A(2)

…th Raman Nambudhri, AIR 1917 Mad. 358. iii. CIT vs. H. Anil Kumar (2011) 242 CTR 537 (Karnataka) iv. CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP) vi. K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436. Ld. AR of the appellant contended that merely because of the fact that the land was sold for profit, it cannot be held that income arising from the said transaction would be taxable as ‘business income’ citing the case of Constructions Co. vs. ITO, Ward 4(2) [2013] 39 taxmann.com 181 (Hyderabad-Trib). Ld. AR cited another case of Hyderabad ITAT…

CHHEDA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 32(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 86/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram with Shri Rahul K. Hakkani (AR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh CIT –DR with Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Sr.DR)
Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/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…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. CHITTRANJAN DUA, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5884/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265 (Mum) etc. in support of their contention that where the payment was made to compensa…

MR. CHITTRANJAN DUA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5803/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle 61(1), Vs Shri Chittranjan Dua, New Delhi 88, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Chittranjan Dua, Vs Acit, Circle 61(1), 88, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. Pqa: Aacpj6311R Appellant Respondent Assessee By S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca & R.K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anant, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 3.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2018

…SC); CIT vs Prabhu Dayal, 82 ITR 804 (SC); Eklingji Trust vs CIT 158 ITR 810 (Raj); CIT vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 386 (SC); Saurashtra Cements Ltd., 325 ITR 422 (SC); Senairam Doongermal vs CIT, 42 ITR 392 (SC); K.R. Srinath vs ACIT, 268 ITR 436 (Madras), CIT vs Barium Chemicals Ltd., 168 ITR 164 (AP); Dhruv N. Shah vs DCIT, 88 ITD 118 (Mum)(TM); CIT vs J. Dalmia, 149 ITR 215 (Del); Sterling Construction and Investments vs ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 185 (Bom); Cadell Wvg. Mill Co.(P) Ltd. Vs CIT 249 ITR 265 (Mum) etc. in support of their contention that where the payment was made to compensa…

BETTER OPTION ESTATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 948/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

…ed under section 2 (47) of the Act as explained in the decisions reported in Gulshan Malik 223 Taxman 243 (Del); CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. 122 ITR 594 (Bom); CIT vs. Ram Gopal 230 Taxman 205 (Del); CIT vs. Lakshmi Devi 296 ITR 363 (MP); K.R. Srinath vs. ACIT 268 ITR 436 (Mad), and consequently the charging of capital gain in the hands of the assessee without referring to the amount receivable under the Agreement but with reference to the sale price mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of the end purchaser at the instance of measures Smart Estates is not tenable. 11. While assailing the observations of…

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1277/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 43(1)

…ly the compensation was paid.” 10.1 In support of his arguments, Ld. DR relied on the following judgments : 1. Vijay Flexible Containers 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) 2. Tata Services Limited 1 Taxman 427 (Bom.) 3. Laxmi Devi Rattani 296 ITR 363 (MP) 4. K.R. Sri Nath 268 ITR 436 (Mad.) 10.2 Further, he submitted that the decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the cases of Sterling Construction and Investments 374 ITR 474 (Bom.), Abbasbhoy A. Dehgamwalla 195 ITR 28 (Bom.), CIT Vs. J. Dalmia 149 ITR 215 (Delhi), Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. 205 ITR 339 (Bom.), Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. 236 ITR 903 (SC) and Sa…

M.M. EXPORTS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 42(1), KOLKATA [MERGED WITH WARD - 43(1)], KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 238/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Raja Ram Chowdhury, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 2(47)Section 50(1)

…tain decisions in the paper book filed before us but has made reference to only few decisions. The first decision is of ITA No..238/Kol/2016 M.M.Exports A.Y. 2007-08 the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Laxmidevi Rathani and Ors (2008) 296 ITR 363 (MP).We have perused the aforesaid decision and it is on the same line as that of the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Services Ltd. (supra). It was a case in which the question for consideration before the Hon’ble Court was as to whether giving up right to claim performance extinguishes the right to property so as t…

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

…h 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 property is a capital asset within the meaning of Sec.2(14) and the gain arising there from is chargea…

CIT vs. Vijay Flexible Containers (1990) 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) v. CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani & Others (268 ITR 436) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax