DTR 137/ 85 ITR 674 (Mum)(Trib), Chadra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT

113 Taxmann.com 246Reported decision2020#19248 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 253

Issues it is cited on

section 69clong term capital gainsection 142(1)section 143(3)total incomecompanyindiabusinessdocument

Judgments citing DTR 137/ 85 ITR 674 (Mum)(Trib), Chadra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT

PRAVIN MOHANLAL SELVADIA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4329/MUM/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner of Mihir Selvadia Income Tax Mumbai (Lega Heir of Late Shri Pravin Mohanlal Selvadia) Vs. 28, Walchand Terrace, Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 400004 (PAN: AADPS3125M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mihir Selvadia Assistant Commissioner of (Lega Heir of Late Shri Pravin Income Tax- 19(2), Mumbai Mohanlal Selvadia) 28, Walchand Terrace, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 400004 (PAN: AADPS3125M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present f…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. PRAVIN SELVADIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2571/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner of Mihir Selvadia Income Tax Mumbai (Lega Heir of Late Shri Pravin Mohanlal Selvadia) Vs. 28, Walchand Terrace, Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 400004 (PAN: AADPS3125M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mihir Selvadia Assistant Commissioner of (Lega Heir of Late Shri Pravin Income Tax- 19(2), Mumbai Mohanlal Selvadia) 28, Walchand Terrace, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 400004 (PAN: AADPS3125M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present f…

PUSHP STEEL AND MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-7

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Pushp Steel and Mining Vs. PCIT Private Ltd. Delhi - 7 751, Ground Floor, Kundewalan Street, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006 PAN : AADCP 2925 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Suresh Gupta, C.A. Revenue by Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 29.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 22.12.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.03.2021 of the Pr. Commiss…

NINA LUTHRA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3861/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 69

…held by three different coordinate benches as retrospective in nature. The coordinate benches in Maria Fernandes Cherly v. ITO (IT )(2021) 187 ITD 738/ 123 Taxmann.com 252 /209 TTJ 850 /198 DTR 137/ 85 ITR 674 (Mum)(Trib), Chadra Prakash Jhunjhunwala Vs. DCIT 113 Taxmann.com 246 and Sandeep Patil Vs. ITO in ITA No. 924/Banglore/Del/2019 has held so. Therefore, we find that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, accordingly, we hold that as the difference between stamp duty valuation u/s 50C is just 8.98 % higher than the actual sale consideration. Only actual sale consideration should be taken for w…