Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd.

208 ITR 232High Court1994#7737 most cited

What is Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The profit or gains from the transfer of a capital asset are assessable to capital gains tax, even if the asset was classified as 'stock in trade'. The determination of whether income is capital gain or business income depends on the attendant facts and circumstances, not solely on classification in books of accounts.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 208 ITR 232 · capital asset transfer · capital gains tax · section 45 · stock in trade · capital loss · business loss · real estate company

Issues it is cited on

long term capital gainprevious yeartransfercompanysection 143(3)business

Judgments citing Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 23/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 234A

…t. Ltd. and the capital asset received on dissolution of firm will be treated as 11 Shri Deepak Gadge capital gain and not the income from business. For such observations, the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1994] ITR 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) also supported the case of the assessee wherein it has been held that – ―It is a transaction of transfer of capital asset-As such, the profit or gains therefrom would be assessable to capital gains tax under s. 45.‖ 9. In the instant case, the sole dispute for consideration is whether the income is to be charged as capital gain or busin…

Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Surat

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.15 & Ita No.619/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 &2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Kalubhai Dulabhai Golaviya Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, B/1-2, Jalaram Society, B/H. Central Circle-2, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Gurunagar Society, Varachha Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp 5116 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45(3)Section 54F

…the case is to be seen to determine whether the income is capital gain or business income No one test or formula can be applied as a thumb rule. The same sentiment has been echoed by the Mumbai High Court in the case of Fort Properties (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) wherein the IT(SS)A Nos.15 & ITA No.619/SRT/2018 A.Ys. 11-12 & 14-15 Sh. Kalubhai D Golaviya Hon'ble Mumbai High Court treated the loss on sale of property classified as "stock in trade" as "capital loss" instead of "business loss". In the present case, the Department had taken a stand that even if the asset was classified as "stock in tr…

ACIT 28 (2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Neel Siddhi Developers, Navi Mumbai

ITA 30/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

…the case is to be seen to determine whether the income is capital gain or business income No one test or formula can be applied as a thumb rule. The same sentiment has been echoed by the Mumbai High Court in the case of Fort Properties (P) Ltd vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court treated the loss on sale of property classified as "stock in trade" as "capital loss" instead of "business loss". In the present case, the Department had taken a stand that even if the asset was classified as "stock in trade" yet the loss on its sale is not "business loss" but is a "capital loss". The…

Shri Vinit Krishnakumar Goyal, Pune vs. Asst. CIT, Circle-9, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1471/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1471/Pun/2013 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Garg
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…additions in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt Debbie Alemeo, (2011) 331 ITR 0059 ( Bom.) ii) Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1994) 208 ITR 232( Bom.) 6 A.Y.2009-10 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that no agricultural income was shown during the relevant year in the return of income filed by the assessee. The period of holding of land by assessee is not distinctive and ascertaining in nature and transactions reflects profit motive of the assessee. 7. We have perused the case recor…

Kutch Development Organisation-Hope 1000, Mumbai vs. C.I.T.13, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee i

ITA 2629/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S Kutch Development Vs. Cit, City-13, Mumbai Organisation-Hope 1000 309/310, Veena Chambers, Dana Bunder, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400009 Pan No.Aaaak 0225 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S Kutch Development Vs. Ito13(2)(4), Mumbai Organisation-Hope 1000 309/310, Veena Chambers, Dana Bunder, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400009 Pan No. Aaaak 0225 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Citdr Mrs. Jathilakshmi Nayak, Dr Date Of Hearing 10/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2019

Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…sessee. In any case, the object clause of the association is not determinative of the activity carried on by the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fort Properteis (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 208 ITR 232. 18. In view of the aforesaid observations and by placing reliance on the various judicial precedents, cited hereinabove, we hold that the ld. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, in the instant case of the assessee and we hereby quash the proceedings 13 ITA Nos.2629/Mum/12 & ITA No.236/Mum/2014 M/s Kutch Developme…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4220/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…the principle laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) and (iv) the principle laid down in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., 82 ITR 363 (S.C.), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd., 116 ITR 1 (S.C.), Fort Properties P. Ltd., 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that deductions/allowances are to be made as per provisions of law and not as per entries in the books of account of the assessee.” 12. Insofar as the Ground of appeal no. 1 is concerned, the same relates to the deduction on account of amortisat…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4219/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…the principle laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) and (iv) the principle laid down in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., 82 ITR 363 (S.C.), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd., 116 ITR 1 (S.C.), Fort Properties P. Ltd., 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that deductions/allowances are to be made as per provisions of law and not as per entries in the books of account of the assessee.” 12. Insofar as the Ground of appeal no. 1 is concerned, the same relates to the deduction on account of amortisat…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4048/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…the principle laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) and (iv) the principle laid down in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., 82 ITR 363 (S.C.), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd., 116 ITR 1 (S.C.), Fort Properties P. Ltd., 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that deductions/allowances are to be made as per provisions of law and not as per entries in the books of account of the assessee.” 12. Insofar as the Ground of appeal no. 1 is concerned, the same relates to the deduction on account of amortisat…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4047/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…the principle laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) and (iv) the principle laid down in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., 82 ITR 363 (S.C.), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd., 116 ITR 1 (S.C.), Fort Properties P. Ltd., 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that deductions/allowances are to be made as per provisions of law and not as per entries in the books of account of the assessee.” 12. Insofar as the Ground of appeal no. 1 is concerned, the same relates to the deduction on account of amortisat…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…the principle laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Co. [1960] 38 ITR 601 (SC) and (iv) the principle laid down in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., 82 ITR 363 (S.C.), Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd., 116 ITR 1 (S.C.), Fort Properties P. Ltd., 208 ITR 232 (Bom.) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that deductions/allowances are to be made as per provisions of law and not as per entries in the books of account of the assessee.” 12. Insofar as the Ground of appeal no. 1 is concerned, the same relates to the deduction on account of amortisat…

M/S Bagmane Developers Pvt Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/183/2014HC Karnataka03 Nov 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

…ew that the stand of the Revenue in taking sanctuary in the ruling of the Hon’ble Court cited supra is misconceived and, put it gently, misleading. (ii) In the case of Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT and CIT v. Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 208 ITR 232 (Bom), the Hon’ble Court, after analyzing the issue – whether the purchase and sale of the Fort property by the assessee was a purchase and sale of a capital asset or it was a business transaction or an adventure in the nature of trade – ruled that – “ We have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties. The first ques…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/S. Bagmane Developers Pvt Ltd

ITA/145/2011HC Karnataka03 Nov 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

…ew that the stand of the Revenue in taking sanctuary in the ruling of the Hon’ble Court cited supra is misconceived and, put it gently, misleading. (ii) In the case of Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. CIT and CIT v. Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 208 ITR 232 (Bom), the Hon’ble Court, after analyzing the issue – whether the purchase and sale of the Fort property by the assessee was a purchase and sale of a capital asset or it was a business transaction or an adventure in the nature of trade – ruled that – “ We have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties. The first ques…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by revenue is dismissed whereas Cross objection filed by assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 4688/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman

…counts of an assessee or the description given to a particular transaction or any assets or liability in its accounts is not conclusive. It is necessary to consider the true nature of the transaction or assets or liability" • Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT {208 ITR 232} (Bom) "It is well-settled that the way in which entries are made by an assessee in his books of account is not determinative of the question whether the asset was held as a capital asset or stock-in- trade. The assessee may, by making entries which are not in conformity with the facts of the case or the proper accountancy principles, conceal the…

Arihant Construction, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 6692/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Shri P.Nagendra Kumar
Section 143(3)

…ses rather than mere entry in books of accounts. In this regard we place reliance upon the following decisions: a) CIT Vs. Hitashi Estates Ltd [313 ITR 393](Delhi) b) CIT Vs. Pai Provision Stores [203 Taxman 196](Kamataka) c) Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT [208 ITR 232] (Bombay) 13. In view of above facts and circumstances as well as legal position, we direct the AO to treat the gains on sale of Badlapur Land as LTCG in place of business income. 14. Next grievance of the assessee relates to disallowance of Rs.15 lakhs incurred for transfer of property at Badlapur. From the record we found that payment has been…

Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Fort Properties Pvt. Ltd. (208 ITR 232) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax