Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jindas Panchand Gandhi

279 ITR 552High Court2005#13917 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

indexed cost of acquisition section 48 transfer section 143 section 14 section 143(3)total income

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jindas Panchand Gandhi

Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-7(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

…Income Tax vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 413 ITR 248 (Bombay) 2) Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP filed by Department [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC) 3) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi [2005] 279 ITR 552 (Guj) 4) Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657. 5) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of South India Minerals Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-XIV, Chennai (2019) 417 ITR 306 (Madras) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 8 of 9 6) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in…

Renu Khurana, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int.Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Renu Khurana, Vs. Acit, H. No. 6480, Sector C-6, Intl. Taxation -2(1)(2), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Bbppk6150E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 48

…yments made in each financial year beginning from financial year 2005-06. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. Praveen Gupta Vs. ACIT, ITA No.2558/Del/2010 for AY: 2007-08. 2. CIT Vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi, 279 ITR 552 3. CIT Vs. S.R. Jeyashankar [2015] 373 ITR 120 (Mad.) 4. L. Vivekananda Vs. ACIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 67 (Bangalore – Trib.) 5. Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT, [2014] 363 ITR 54 (P&H) 5. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. 6. We have considered rival submissions and p…

M/S. Sumit Exports, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 645/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

…(Mag. 3. Tribunal order in ITA No. 3923 (Mum) of 2002 for assessment year 1995-96 in the case of Mrs. Manju Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT, Mumbai C Bench order dated 16-9-2004 4. Jitendra Mohan v. ITO [2001] 11 SO 1 594 (Dell). 5. CIT vs Jindas Parchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR 552 (Guj) In our case as allotment letter issued by the BDB in the year 1998- 99 gives us the right to obtain office premises so it become an assets under section 2 (14) of the Income Tax Act. 1% 1. Whether Gain on sale of Flat will be short Term or Long Term? An asset which is held for 36 months is a long term asset. Whether it is held for 36 months…

Govind Singh Grewal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3232/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Govind Singh Grewal, Vs Ito, 8-A, Panchsheel Marg, Ward-61(1), Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aghpg7795D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 2Section 54

…has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jitendra Mohan vs. ITO reported in 2006 (11) TMI 371, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657, CIT vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi, reported in 279 ITR 552 and various other decisions. He accordingly submitted that the order passed by the lower authorities being bad in the eye of law has to be set aside and the gain on the sale of flat should be treated as long-term capital gain by allowing indexation benefit from the date of allotment/date of buyer’s agreement and not from the date of payments/date…

Triple Ess Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-27, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR and Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

…eyashankar (2015) 373 ITR 120 (Madras) f. Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Anita D. Kanjani v. ACIT (2017) 163 ITD 451 g. Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy (2018) 96 taxmann.com 648 h. Jindas Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR 552 (Gujarat) i. CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj) j. Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Mrs. Sheela Chopra in ITA No. 169/Kol/2014 7. He submitted that all the aforesaid judgments clearly laid down the ratio that if Assessee gets the right to hold the flat on issuance of an allotment letter and merely on the fact…

Kamal Kishore Singhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 813/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamal Kishore Singhi Asstt. Commissioner Of 10/161, Kamal Park Income Tax-26(1) K.G. Vs. Building, V.S. Marg, Mahim, Mittal Hospital Bldg., Mumbai-400016. 6Th Floor, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400002 Pan No. Aadps3820K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hari S. Raheja, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

…t Corpn. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 441 (Bom), ITO v. Smt. Kashmiraben M. Parekh (1992) 44 TTJ (Ahd) 68, Manju Agarwal v. ACIT (ITA No. 3923 of 2002 dated 16.09.2004) by ITAT Mumbai, Jitendra Mohan v. ITO (2007) 11 SOT 594 (Del), CIT v. Jindas Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR 552 (Guj), M. Symala Rao v. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 140 (AP). Shri Kamal Kishore Singhi 4 However, the AO was not convinced with the above decisions relied on by the assessee and held that after taking possession of the flat the assessee becomes the owner of the flat from the date of possession and as it is a distinct capital asset from the rights in the…

Ramita Mahendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Purushotam Kumar

Section 54

…y payment of full consideration on July 29, 1988, and handing over of possession of the flat on the next day.” 7. On the other hand, the learned senior DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIV s. Jindas Panchand Gandhi [2005] 279 ITR 552 (Guj) wherein, the issue was regarding the claim of deduction u/s. 80T and also whether the asset is a Long term or Short term, not the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 8. In such circumstances and in the given facts of the case and also the case law relied on by learned Counsel for assessee in the 11 ITA.No.4535/MUM/2014 (A.Y: 2010-11) Ram…