Dr. George Thomas K v. CIT

MOHAMMED FAKHRE ALAM SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-52, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Mohammed Fakhre Alam The Assessing Officer, Shaikh, Ward-17(2)(3), New Usmaniya Washing, Vs. Mumbai. Noor Mansion, 111, Janjikar Street, Crawford Market, Mumbai-400003. Pan : Bhops3293R (Appellant) (Respondent)

…rightly so because the residential flat owned by the assessee in society building is certainly a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and compensation is referable to the same. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. George Thomas K vs CIT(156 ITR 412), "the burden is on the revenue to establish that the receipt is of revenue nature" though "once the receipt is found to be of revenue character, whether it comes under exemption or not, it is for the assessee to establish". The only defence put up by learned Departmental Representative is that cash compensation received by the assessee is nothin…

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMABI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 417 & 418 /Mum/2025 (A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ) Krishnakan Sharma (LH of Vs. ITO – 23(3)(5) Late vimaladevi Sharma) 1st Floor, Room No. B/7/32, MIG Colony, 121, Matru Mandir, Bandra East – 400051. Grant Road, Mumbai – 400007 PAN/GIR No. BBLPS8724E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hitesh Shah Revenue by Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: These two appeals have been fil…

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 417 & 418 /Mum/2025 (A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ) Krishnakan Sharma (LH of Vs. ITO – 23(3)(5) Late vimaladevi Sharma) 1st Floor, Room No. B/7/32, MIG Colony, 121, Matru Mandir, Bandra East – 400051. Grant Road, Mumbai – 400007 PAN/GIR No. BBLPS8724E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hitesh Shah Revenue by Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: These two appeals have been fil…

KUNNAMA V BALAKRISHNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(2) 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, Mig Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepb0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee, Despite The Fact That The Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On Previous Five (5) Occasions. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.25,21,508/- Made By Ao By Treating The Hardship Compensation Fund As “Dividend Income” Received From The Residential Society.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ ITO-23(2)(2) 1st Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, MIG Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAEPB0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आद…

RAMANAN SIVARAMAN ERANATH VENGALI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAX WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the addition of INR 97,32,625/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and Ground No. 2 to 4 are allowed in terms of the aforesaid

…y so because the residential flat owned by the assessee in society building is certainly a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and compensation is referable to the same. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. K George Thomas v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 412/23 Taxman 46, "the burden is on the revenue to establish that the receipt is of revenue nature" though "once the receipt is found to be of revenue character, whether it comes under exemption or not, it is for the assessee to establish". The only defence put up by learned Departmental Representative is that cash compensation received by the assess…

KISHORE D PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shri Kishre D. P Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 501, Ashar Villa, Plot Ward No. 21(2)(3) Mumbai Vs. No. 242, Near Taiml Sangham Hall Sion (E), Mumbai-400022 Pan No.Aslps3244H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri. Rs Bindra, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. B.S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 12-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

…rightly so because the residential flat owned by the assessee in society building is certainly a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and compensation is referable to the same. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. George Thomas K vs CIT(156 ITR 412), "the burden is on the revenue to establish that the receipt is of revenue nature" though "once the receipt is found to be of revenue character, whether it comes under exemption or not, it is for the assessee to establish". The only defence put up by learned Departmental Representative is that cash compensation received by the assessee is nothin…

RAJNIKANT D SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no. 4424/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Rajnikant D. Shroff Uniphos House, 11, C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park, Khar (W) ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 052 PAN – AALPS9281Q v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–38, Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist Assessee by : Ms. Kirti R. Kamdar Date of Hearing – 10.08.2016 Date of Order – 23.09.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Instant appeal by the assess…

JITENDRA KUMAR SONEJA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. No. 291/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year:2007-08) Jitendra Kumar Soneja 327, Wadala Udyog Bhawan, Naigaon Cross Road, Wadala, Mumbai 400 031 Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(3), Mumbai-400 020 Respondent PAN: AKSPS9539A Date of Corrigendum : 30-03-2017 CORRIGENDUM In the above appeal, there exist inadvertent mistake in Sub Para 4 of Para 3.1, which is corrected and now which may be read as under: 3.1 Regarding addition of Rs.22 lacs as income from other sources, ld. Authorized Representative drew my…

MAHESH J JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Mahesh J. Jhaveri, Ito 21(1)(3) 401/02 Purna Urvi Ns Rd 2, बनाम/ Swastik Society, Vile Parle(W) Mumbai Vs. Mumbai -400056 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaepj8678F

…rightly so because the residential flat owned bythe assessee in society building is certainly a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and compensation is preferable to the same. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. George Thomas K vs CIT(156 ITR 412), “the burden is on the revenue to establish that the receipt is of revenue nature” though “once the receipts found to be of revenue character, whether it comes under exemption or not, it is for the assessee to establish”. The only defence put up by learned Departmental Representative is that cash compensation received by the assessee is nothing…