Dr. Maya Shenoy v. ACIT

124 TTJ 692Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#8604 most cited

What is Dr. Maya Shenoy v. ACIT authority for?

Transfer of land in consideration of flats constitutes one transaction giving rise to capital gains, and the subsequent sale of those flats by the assessee constitutes a separate transaction also giving rise to capital gains.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

Dr. Maya Shenoy v. ACIT · transfer of land for flats · capital gains · joint development agreement · sale of flats · capital gains tax · ITAT Hyderabad

Also reported as

23 DTR 140

Judgments citing Dr. Maya Shenoy v. ACIT

M/S. Anupam Ranjan (HUF), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R
Section 54Section 54F

…ion of the flats constitute one transaction giving rise to capital gains and the sale of flats by the assessee constitute another transaction giving rise to capital gains. 5. Same view was taken by the Hyderabad Bench in the case of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT (124 TTJ 692) (Hyd)(Trib). 6. Further contention of the assessee’s counsel is that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 54 as well as 54F of the Act. This argument of assessee’s counsel is totally incorrect. The exemption u/s 54 of the Act is to be granted when the following conditions are satisfied as held by Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in the case of…

M/S Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-18(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

…assessing the income of a non-resident under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. (b) In respect of consideration for the purpose of Joint development agreement. (i) DDIT v. G.Raghuram [(2010) 134 TTJ 87 (ITAT Chennai) (ii) Dr.Maya Shenoy v. ITO [(2009) 124 TTJ 692 (ITAT Hyderabad) (iii) CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. [(1967) 66 ITR 622 (SC)] (iv) Jasbir Singh Sakaria In re [(2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR)] In the case of CIT v. George Henderson & Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- "FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION" MEANING OF The expression "full value of the consideration for which the…

M.S. Lakshmi Bai, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1679/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…roperty Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in…

R. Subba Laxmi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1600/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…roperty Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in…

Viswanatha Reddy Potham, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1599/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…roperty Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in…

Jillela Dasaratha Reddy, Rep by Gpa Holder, J Pedda Venkata Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1598/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…roperty Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in…

Khambhampati Jayalakshmi, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1587/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…roperty Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer ITA Nos. 1587, 1588, 1598, 1599, :- 9 -: 1600 & 1679/Hyd/2016 of property by way of supplemental agreement of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been quantified in that case, the issue there in…

Rama Rao Gottumukkala, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1233/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…the property to the developer so as to invoke the Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer of property by way of supplemental agreement, of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 10 -: terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been qu…

Kondal Rao Kurmyagari, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(5), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1232/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri J. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Prasad Rao, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…the property to the developer so as to invoke the Transfer of Property Act. Ld. Counsel distinguished the cases of Jasbir Singh Sarkaria [294 ITR 196] (AAR) where it was also transfer of property by way of supplemental agreement, of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs. ACIT [124 TTJ 692], where there is a possession which was handed over in favour of the developer. Referring to the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Potla Nageswara Rao Vs. DCIT [365 ITR 249] (AP), it was submitted that the ITA Nos. 1232 & 1233/Hyd/2016 :- 10 -: terms of agreement have been fulfilled by the said developer and the consideration had been qu…

Sh. Jai Ram, Jagadhari vs. ITO, Yamunanagar

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

…urchase a property for a sum which is paid and promised to be paid, so sale has taken place on 20.03.2007 i.e. during year under consideration. Here, the reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal Hyderabad 'A' Bench in the case of Dr. Maya Shenoy 23 DTR 140, wherein it was held that so long as transfer is made for a consideration it is immaterial that consideration will be received in future. Thus,the sale is complete even if price is intended to be paid. So sale has taken place during the year. 6.4 Further, there is a certainty in performance of contract and no right to revocation is stipulated in t…

Sh. Amar Singh, Jagadhari vs. ITO, Yamunanagar

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

…urchase a property for a sum which is paid and promised to be paid, so sale has taken place on 20.03.2007 i.e. during year under consideration. Here, the reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal Hyderabad 'A' Bench in the case of Dr. Maya Shenoy 23 DTR 140, wherein it was held that so long as transfer is made for a consideration it is immaterial that consideration will be received in future. Thus,the sale is complete even if price is intended to be paid. So sale has taken place during the year. 6.4 Further, there is a certainty in performance of contract and no right to revocation is stipulated in t…

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

…transfer of land in consideration of the flats constitute one transaction giving rise to capital gains and the sale of flats by the assessee constitute another transaction giving rise to capital gains. [DR. MAYA SHENOY vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ (Hyd) 692:(2009) 23 DTR 140 followed]. 6.3 The authorized representative vehemently argued relied on the assessment for AY 2007-08 made u/s 143(3)/263. In this, Assessing Officer admitted the cost of acquisition @ 6l.74 per sq.ft. By adopting such value he held that cost of acquisition is to include both the land and superstructure thereon. He cited extracts of the joint dev…

ACIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Jawaharlal L Agicha, Mumbai

ITA 1844/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 17(3) Shri Jawaharlal L. Agicha R.No.614, 6Th Floor, 99, Ray Road, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033 Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adjpa2926K Revenue By Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit-Dr) Respondent By Shri Hiro Rai (Ar)

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(i)Section 2(47)(v)Section 4(1)

…upport, Ld. CIT-DR relied upon following judgments: 1. Chaturbuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT 260 ITR 491(Bom) 2. Jasbir Singh Sarkaria v CIT AAR. No.724 of 2006 dt. 30.08.2007 3. Electro Zavod (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 278 ITR 189 (Cal) 4. Dr. Maya Shenoy vs. ACIT 124 TTJ 692 (Hyd) 5. Shri Mahesh Nemichandra Ganeshwade vs. ITO 594/PN/10 dated 29.03.2012 6. V. Ramchandra Const. P. Ltd. 11 taxmann.com415(Agra) 7 Jawaharlal L. Agicha 7. Sureshchandra Agarwal vs. ITO (2011) 15 taxmann 115(Mum) 8. Smt. Binderchokh vs. ACIT (2013) 36 taxmann 503 (CHD) 9. G. Srinivasan vs. DCIT (2012) 28 taxman 200 (Cochin) 10. Hussanlal Pu…

Dr. Maya Shenoy v. ACIT (124 TTJ 692) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax