Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat

328 ITR 556High Court2010#3479 most cited

What is Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat authority for?

A transaction involving the purchase of land, especially if part of a series of similar transactions and likely to be acquired by the government, can be considered an adventure in the nature of trade, leading to the profit being assessed as business income.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat · 328 ITR 556 · adventure in the nature of trade · business income · sale of land · acquisition by government · series of transactions · profit assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 10(37)Section 2(13)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(1A)Section 28

Issues it is cited on

enhanced compensationlong term capital gainslong term capital gainprevious yeartransferbusiness

Judgments citing Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCL 1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. TIRUCHANGODU SENGODAGOUNDER RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1383/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1382 & 1383/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Income Tax, Ramasamy Khannaiyan, Central Circle 1, 67, Avarampalaym Road, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 006. [Pan:Afzpk7832C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 13 Days. The Acit Central Circle 1, Coimbatore Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate

…nal and Charitable Trust at an exorbitant price much higher than guideline value. We note that after considering the submissions of the assessee and by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DCIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat 328 ITR 556, the Assessing Officer treated the sale transaction as adventure in the nature of trade and assessed the profit on sale of land to the tune of ₹.10,83,91,500/- as business income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the sale transaction cannot be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade and directed the Assessing Offi…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE vs. TIRUCHANGODU SENGODAGOUNDER RAMASAMY KHANNAIYAN, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1382/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1382 & 1383/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Income Tax, Ramasamy Khannaiyan, Central Circle 1, 67, Avarampalaym Road, K.R. Puram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore 641 006. [Pan:Afzpk7832C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 13 Days. The Acit Central Circle 1, Coimbatore Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate

…nal and Charitable Trust at an exorbitant price much higher than guideline value. We note that after considering the submissions of the assessee and by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of DCIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat 328 ITR 556, the Assessing Officer treated the sale transaction as adventure in the nature of trade and assessed the profit on sale of land to the tune of ₹.10,83,91,500/- as business income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the sale transaction cannot be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade and directed the Assessing Offi…

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6373/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…of this land with a view to selling it and thereby indulged in an adventure in the nature of trade. I have duly considered this view. In a similar matter the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has taken a similar view. In the case of DCIT vs Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat 328 ITR 556 (Bom) the Hon’ble High Court held, ”From the material placed on record, on the basis of which the three authorities have concurrently held that the transactions were "adventure in the nature of 6 Akram trade", it can clearly be inferred that the assesses herein were involved in series of transactions of purchasing lands which were notified or lik…

VIPUL MAHASUKHLAL GOPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2

ITA 3726/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvipul Mahasukhlal Gopani, A-3003, One Avighna Park, Mahadev Palav Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaapg8761A ....... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jayshree Menon, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

…n by the both sides and find that none of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee matches the facts of the matter. On this issue rather we find the judicial pronouncement relied upon by the AO relevant on the facts of the matter in the case of 328 ITR 556 (Bom.). DCIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, wherein Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under: “The assessees, namely, 'G', 'S' and 'K' were real brothers. The said assessees and one 'N', who was an advocate by profession, had purchased certain agricultural lands during the period 1992-1998. The said lands were acquired immediately thereafter…

MEHSANA DIST.CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 97/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 245Section 80P

…ided that once the income has actually become receivable by the assessee, its knowledge to the assessee or otherwise is of no consequence. The following is the gist of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat reported at 328 ITR 556:- "Interest under s.234B-Chargeability-Higher income determined on assessment-As profit earned by the assessee on receipt of the compensation was held as income chargeable to tax under the head "Profit from business" mere difficulty faced by the assessee in the matter of computation cannot defeat the liability for payment of advance tax- Interest…

M/S. KOHLI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 410/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 410/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Kohli Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 80, Scindia House, Ward-14(4), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaack3430D Assessee By : Sh. G. S. Kohli, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. G. S. Kohli, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 2(14)Section 40a

…"Sale Deed" in favour of nominees. That such transactions evidently proves it were business transactions, thus, the Apex court has rightly given the favour to the revenue by treating it as "business income". The other case cited by the learned CIT (Appeal) 328 ITR 556 (74-91) Bombay High Court The assessee purchased an agricultural land which was later acquired by Govt. The surplus which he got along with additional compensation was treated as "business income" giving the contents that there was no intention to cultivate it and further the assessee's past history shows that he was engaged in such activities r…

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 2.11. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ut from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. Thereassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 5.8. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of incom…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ut from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. Thereassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 5.8. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of incom…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ut from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. Thereassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 5.8. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of incom…

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…The M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 2.10. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of incom…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 2.10. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 2.10. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 2.10. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the…

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ssing Officer). The information was in the annexure and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section Dinesh S. Jain 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 4.9. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to t…

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…g Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 14 & 2698/Mum/2016 4.9. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the…

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…g Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 14 & 2698/Mum/2016 4.9. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the…

MOHD HASAN ABDUL GAFOOR MOMIN,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(2), KALYAN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

…from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 3.11. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment 18 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation th…

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…from the Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 2.14. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of 17 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. taxable long-term capital…

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEENAKSHI N SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…/Mum/2018 Assessing Officer). The information was in the annexures and consequently Explanation 2(c)(iv) of section 147 would apply. The reassessment proceedings after four years were valid. 7.11 In the case of Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat, (2010) 328 ITR 556 (Bom), it was not the case of the assessee that the notice issued was after the expiry of the time limit provided in section 153(2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income…

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

Deputy CIT v. Gopal Ramnarayan Kasat (328 ITR 556) — Cited in 34 Judgments | BharatTax