Hameed Jaffery v. CIT

227 ITR 724High Court1997#12434 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 269UA(f)Section 27(iiib)Section 54

Issues it is cited on

section 24(1)tax recovery officersection 23(1)(a)section 23(1)interest on interestannual letting valueannual valuesection 2(47)section 220section 54fsection 22section 24

Judgments citing Hameed Jaffery v. CIT

Deepankar Mogha, Mumbai vs. The Assisatnt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4801/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 27Section 54

…other monetary consideration. Thus, for application of provisions of section 54, the assessee has to buy a property as an owner In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Hameed Jaffery vs. CIT (227 ITR 724) which was in the context of old provision of section 54 which required that the property which had been transferred should be in the occupation of the assessee for his own residence or for the residence of his parents. The Hon'ble High Court held that occupation should be as an owner and not as tenant. The exemption under section 54 from capital…

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3143/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

…was to be considered as 12% of interest free deposit of Rs.3 Crores received by the assessee from Dr. Saraiya and brought the same to tax. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hameed Jaffery V/s CIT (1997) 227 ITR 724 held that no transfer of property was carried out by the assessee to licensee. Dr. Saraiya and the license granted was not for exclusive use but the assessee was vested Mr. Bharat K. Sheth; A.Ys. 00-01, 05-06 & 06-07 with the right to enter and use the said premises. The entire transaction could not be characterized as a colorable device to avoid…

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3142/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

…was to be considered as 12% of interest free deposit of Rs.3 Crores received by the assessee from Dr. Saraiya and brought the same to tax. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hameed Jaffery V/s CIT (1997) 227 ITR 724 held that no transfer of property was carried out by the assessee to licensee. Dr. Saraiya and the license granted was not for exclusive use but the assessee was vested Mr. Bharat K. Sheth; A.Ys. 00-01, 05-06 & 06-07 with the right to enter and use the said premises. The entire transaction could not be characterized as a colorable device to avoid…

Bharat K. Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, two appeals for AY 2000-01 and 2005-06 are partly allowed and Appeal for AY 2006-

ITA 3141/MUM/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U Matkarni, DR
Section 220

…was to be considered as 12% of interest free deposit of Rs.3 Crores received by the assessee from Dr. Saraiya and brought the same to tax. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hameed Jaffery V/s CIT (1997) 227 ITR 724 held that no transfer of property was carried out by the assessee to licensee. Dr. Saraiya and the license granted was not for exclusive use but the assessee was vested Mr. Bharat K. Sheth; A.Ys. 00-01, 05-06 & 06-07 with the right to enter and use the said premises. The entire transaction could not be characterized as a colorable device to avoid…

Bharat K Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4648/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2140/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1527/Mum/2005 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2822/Mum/2006 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2747/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2749/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.8547/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2746/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 10. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 11. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2252/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) &

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld.Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Oommen Thorian -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…was to be considered as 12% of interest free deposit of Rs.3 Crores received by the assessee from Dr. Saraiya and brought the same to tax. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hameed Jaffery V/s CIT (1997) 227 ITR 724 held that no transfer of property was carried out by the assessee to licensee 10 Shri Bharat K.Sheth i.e. Dr. Saraiya and the license granted was not for exclusive use but the assessee was vested with the right to enter and use the said premises. The entire transaction could not be characterized as a colorable device to avoid payment of tax. Hen…

Bharat K Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2253/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2140/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1527/Mum/2005 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2822/Mum/2006 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2747/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2749/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.8547/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2746/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 10. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 11. आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2252/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) &

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala-Ld.Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Oommen Thorian -Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…was to be considered as 12% of interest free deposit of Rs.3 Crores received by the assessee from Dr. Saraiya and brought the same to tax. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hameed Jaffery V/s CIT (1997) 227 ITR 724 held that no transfer of property was carried out by the assessee to licensee 10 Shri Bharat K.Sheth i.e. Dr. Saraiya and the license granted was not for exclusive use but the assessee was vested with the right to enter and use the said premises. The entire transaction could not be characterized as a colorable device to avoid payment of tax. Hen…

Shivakumar Kheny (HUF), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 792/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 45Section 54

…on. Thus, for application of provisions of section 54, the assessee has to buy a property as an owner. Page 12 of 14 In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment AY : 08-09 of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Hameed Jaffery vs. CIT (227 ITR 724) which was in the context of old provision of section 54 which required that the property which had been transferred should be in the occupation of the assessee for his own residence or for the residence of his parents. The Hon'ble High Court held that occupation should be as an owner and not as tenant. The exemption under section 54 from capital…

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6093/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 2(47)Section 269USection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…) and section 269UA(f) was, in its view, of no moment. Reliance stands placed by it on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. T. N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46 (SC); CIT vs. Gopaldas H. Hansrajani [1999] 239 ITR 523 (Bom); and Hameed Jaffery vs. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 724 (Bom), each explaining the scope of the word ‘purchase’ and, further, only in the context of section 54 itself. The well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes, i.e., that where two views are possible, the Court shall be inclined to favour one which is more beneficial to the subject (assessee), was also found by it as inapplicable in-as-…

Hameed Jaffery v. CIT (227 ITR 724) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax