Enterprises & Ors. (2008)215ClR (Mad)244 ClT VS.AL Ramanathan (2000) 245 ITR 494 (Mad) ClT v. R.Ponnammal

Abalabba Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…serial no.12) to substantiate that the impugned transaction is carried out as part of family settlement. The ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kay ARR Enterprises and Ors (299 ITR 348) and CIT Vs. R. Ponnammal (164 ITR 706) in this regard and submitted the SLP against which are dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court (306 ITR 5). The ld. AR further submitted that the definition of "income" under section 2(24) of the Act does not cover the transaction where immovable property is purchased at a price lower than the market value fixed for stamp duty purposes. The ld. AR al…

Sujan Azad Parikh, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesujan Azad Parikh V. Dcit – 7(1) C-701, Beaumonde Tower Room No. 653, 6Th Floor Appasaheb Marathe Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Prabhadevi, Mumbai -400025 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaepp9028R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyan Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

…legal position this has been referred as capital gain although it is not a capital gain.AR relied on the following judgements: CIT Vs. Kay Arr Enterprises & Ors. (2008) 215C1R (Mad) 244 CIT Vs.AL Ramanathan (2000) 245 ITR 494 (Mad) CIT Vs. R. Ponnammal (1987) 164 ITR 706 (Mad) 10. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders. of the authorities below. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., 229 ITR 383, we accept the additional ground raised which is purely legal in nature. All the related facts are already on the record of the lower authori…

Kunal R. Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhkunal R. Gupta, Income Tax Officer 31(2)(2) 110B, Shreyas Industrial R.No. 709, Pratyakshkar Estate, Oppo Western Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400 063 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aefpg2409E

…of Maturi Pullaiah (Supra), wherein it is stated that even if there is no right of the property for any of the family members he can 14 claim the same by way of family settlement. Similarly, Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. R Poonammal (1987) 164 ITR 706 (Mad) held that:- ". . . the family arrangement had been brought about by the intervention of the panchayatdars and this clearly shows that the sons and daughters of the assessee were laying claims to the property which the assessee got under the will of her father and it was not relevant at the time when the family arrangement was entered into…

Sujan Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-Xxxx, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed where as appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

…e of legal position this has been offered as capital gain although it is not a capital gain.AR relied on the following judgements: CIT Vs.Kay Arr Enterprises & Ors. (2008)215ClR (Mad)244 ClT VS.AL Ramanathan (2000) 245 ITR 494 (Mad) ClT Vs. R.Ponnammal (1987) 164 ITR 706 (MAD) 10. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., 229 ITR 383, we accept the additional ground raised which is purely legal in nature. All the related facts are already on the record of the lower authori…