Haresh v. Milani Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

114 ITD 428Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#14760 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Haresh v. Milani Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

NOSHIR DARABSHAW TALATI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR 7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1516/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Sr. A.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45

…ized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in CIT v. Smt. Debbie Alemao [2011] 331 ITR 59/196 Taxman 230/[2010] 8 taxmann.com 243 and Pune Bench of Tribunal in Haresh V. Milani v. Jt. CIT [2008] 114 ITD 428. The Perusal of facts of both the cases reflect that in both the abovesaid decisions, the land was cultivated by the assessee and even the nature of the crop is mentioned. However, in the facts of the present case before us as pointed out by us in the paras hereinabove, the assessee has failed to establish whether the land was used for carrying o…

PRAKASH CHOITRAM TEKWANI,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1045/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 54B

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1045/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Prakash Choitram Tekwani, 88, Adarsh Nagar, Nr. RTO Office, Jilha Peth, Jalgaon – 425001 PAN : AAKPT0929P .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Jalgaon ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Ghei सुनवाई क…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH DANABHAI PATEL,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1534/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1534/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 54Section 54B

…o further support his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: 1) CIT Vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao reported as 196 Taxman 230 (Bombay) 2) ITO Vs. Shri Mahesh Ahire in ITA No.346/PUN/2013 decided on 14.07.2017 3) Haresh V. Milani Vs. JCIT reported as 114 ITD 428 (Pune) 4) CIT Vs. Minguel Chandra Pais reported as 149 Taxman 131 (Bombay) 9 A.Y. 2012-13 5) Gopal C. Sharma Vs. CIT reported as 72 Taxman 353 (Bombay) 7. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of Authorities below. The solitary issue raised in the present appeal by the Department is…

PRASHANT JAIPAL REDDY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 9(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4122/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhprashant Jaipal Reddy I.T. O, Ward-9(1)-3, C/O Dhanapat Kothari & Room No. 224, Aayakar Bhavan, Accociates, Office No.50, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Wadia Building, 9-B, Vs. Cawasji Patel Street, For, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaypr7037E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (Sr. DR)

Section 1Section 112Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 48

…No.911/M/2015-‘H’ Bench ITAT, Mum order dated 22.12.2016. (vi) Vannit Kumar Inderkumar Gupta v/s JCIT, ITA No. 2736/M/2013 ‘F’ Bench, ITAT, Mum order dated 16.12.2015. (vii) ITO v/s Ashok Shukla, 139 ITD 666 (Indore) (2012). (viii) Harish V. Milani v/s JCIT, 114 ITD 428 (Pune) (2008) (ix) Thanmel Ganeshmal Parmar v/s ITO, ITA No. 266/M/2013 ‘B’ Bench, ITAT, Pune order dated 04.11.2015. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. It was argued that the ld. CIT (A) considered the entire factual background of the facts of the case in para 4.4 of his order. The ld. CIT(…

HEMENDRA DEVENDRA SHAH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3261/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3261/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Hemendra Devendra Shah, No.14, First Avenue, The Income Tax Officer, Harrington Road, Chetpet, V. Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), Chennai - 600 031. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Amzps 6457 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT

…ge 17 of paper-book. The Ld.counsel has also placed his reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Smt. Debbie Alemao (331 ITR 590. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Pune Bench of this Tribunal in Haresh V. Milani v. JCIT (2008) 114 ITD 428. 7. On the contrary, Shri Supriyo Pal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the land in question was classified 5 I.T.A. No.3261/Mds/16 as Residential Area – Class I by the State Registration Department, therefore, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee considering that this is not an agricultural land. The…

M/S. AERENS DEVELOPERS AND ENGINEERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

ITA 5054/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.S. Reddy Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens Developers & Engineers Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Yea: 2007-08 Aerens R. Infra-Structure Ltd., Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Mohindra Tower, Central Circel-8, 2A-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaaca2199R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Department By: Shri R.K. Garg, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 :08.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessees Have Questioned The First Appellate Order On The Following Common Grounds Of Appeals: The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Taxing The Compensation Of Rs. 1 Crore As Revenue Receipt Ignoring The Various Judicial Pronouncements & Submissions Of The Assessee. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Wrongly Rejected The Additional Evidence, I The Shape Of Fard Of Land & Resolution Of The Company, Produced By The As Per The Provision Of Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Garg, DR

…n these circumstances, the land acquired from the ownership of the assessee was agricultural land.” 6. It is submitted that decision of Sarifabibi (supra) has been distinguished by the Pune Bench of the ITAT in the case of Harish V Milani VS JCIT reported in 114 ITD 428(Pune) wherein the Hon’ble Bench has held as under:- “From the perusal of the said entries in the extract of 7/12, it is thus clear that the aforesaid lands were subjected to land revenue and assessment of the land revenue was accordingly entered into the extract of 7/12. It is also seen that the total cultivatable land has also been shown therein…