(i) Lata G. Rohra v. DCIT

BALJIT SINGH GAMBHIR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.912/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Baljit Singh Gambhir V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Tejmohan Singh, बिधम International Taxation, Advocate 527, Sector Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 10-D, Chandigarh Income Tax Officer, 160011 International Taxation, Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 400076 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpg9637H Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Krishna Kumar (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

…fferent years while the assessee seeks to apply the indexation on total cost and from the year of allotment. In this regard, Ld. AR has placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Smt. Lata G. Rohra Vs. DCIT Central -39 Mumbai [2008]21 SOT 541 (Mumbai) wherein it has been held that under section 48, benefit of indexation should be given on the basis of date of cost of acquisition of asset and not on the basis of date of actual payment. 4.2 With regard to the date of acquisition, ld. AR has further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PC…

M/S. SUMIT EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT 19(3) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

…re than 36 months so gain on sale of Flat will be Long term Only. How Indexation is to be done? 5 M/s. Sumit Export The issue gets settled by Mumbai Tribunals decision in case of Suit, Lata G. Rohra v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, C.C. 39, Mumbai 12008 21 SOT 541 (Mum.) where is the facts of the case were as under FACTS The assessee vide unregistered agreement with a developer purchased a flat in 1993 which was constructed in the year 1997 and registered in the year 1998. During the relevant year, the assessee sold said flat and after claiming the indexed cost at Rs. 18.74 lakhs showed long-term capital ga…

BACHUBHAI DHARAMSHI ARETHIYA ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CC 3, THANE

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

…ions of the legislature particularly in Sec. 2(42) (a) and explanation to Sec. 48. We have gone through the following citations quoted by the assessee in his favour I. Charanbir Singh Jolly vs ITO (2006)5 SOT 89 (Mum) II. Shrimati Lata G.Rohra vs DCIT 9(2008) 21 SOT 541 (Mum) III. Mysore Minerals Ltd Vs CIT (1994) 239 ITR 775(S.C) The judgements relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the case. 11. Assessees emphasis on base year i.e., FY 2006-07 and cost of acquisition i.e. 9 Cr. are relevant for the purposes of determination of the nature of the asset i.e. 7 ITA…

NITIN PARKASH,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 3, THANE

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

…ssee held the property i.e. rights in the flat upon receipt of allotment letter. To support his contentions the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on various decisions including the following decisions: (i) Lata G. Rohra vs. DCIT, 21 SOT 541(Mum) (ii) Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.6423/Mum/2008 (iii) M/s. Pooja Exports , ITA No.2222/Mum/2010 (iv) Mr. Ramprakash Bubna, ITA No. 6578/Mum/2010 4. On the other hand, Shri Tharian Oommen representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the letter of allotment cannot b…

NITIN PARKASH,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 3, THANE

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

…ssee held the property i.e. rights in the flat upon receipt of allotment letter. To support his contentions the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on various decisions including the following decisions: (i) Lata G. Rohra vs. DCIT, 21 SOT 541(Mum) (ii) Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.6423/Mum/2008 (iii) M/s. Pooja Exports , ITA No.2222/Mum/2010 (iv) Mr. Ramprakash Bubna, ITA No. 6578/Mum/2010 4. On the other hand, Shri Tharian Oommen representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the letter of allotment cannot b…

BHANSALI INFOTECH P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Office No. 5 & 6 Income Tax (Osd) 10(3) Shakti Arcade Aayakar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Plot No.5, Sector – 19D Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Room No.517, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccb7808E Appellant) .. Respondent)

…others (2010) 46 DTR 185 wherein it has been held that the right of assessee emanates from the issuance of allotment letter as in the facts of case of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by the Mumbai ITAT in the case of Smt. Lota G Rohira v. DOT (2008) 21 SOT 541 (Mum). Therefore, u/s 2(47) the "relinquishment" of any right in a capital asset fails within the definition of the term "transfer" of capita! asset. Therefore, there is 9 M/s. Bhansali Infotech Pvt. Ltd., "transfer" of capital asset and hence the long term capital loss calculated is ought to be allowed. 13. As per record, the assessee company in…

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. MICHELLE N. SANGHVI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumaracit, Circle - 21(2) Shri Michelle N. Sanghvi Room No. 115, 1St Floor 402, Kewal Indl. Estate Piramal Chambers Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Parel, Mumbai 400012 Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 Pan – Arsps1466M Appellant Respondent

…se executed between the appellant and the builder. 20. In arriving at the above conclusion, I rely on the following decisions: (i) Praveen Gupta vs ACIT(137TTJ 307) (Del.) (ii) Nita A. Patel vs ITO (132TTJ 468) (2009) (Mum.) (iii) LataG. Rohra vs DCIT (2008) (21 SOT 541) (Mum.) ; (iv) ACIT vs Credit Rating Information Services of India Ltd. (ITA no. 9396/Mum/2004 (v) Praveen Gupta vs ACIT 2011 -(052)- DTR-0334-TDEL 21. In view of the above, the AO is directed to re-compute the long term capital gain taking the indexation for cost of acquisition as on 18.12.2006 . Hence, grounds of appeal no. 2(a)-(j) and 4 are al…

SNEHA BIMAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 19, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…as the AO allowed the benefit of indexation to the assessee by taking the date of letter of intent as the date of ownership as per the provisions of Act and in support of this the ld.AR relied on the following case laws: a) Smt.Lata G Rohra V/s DCIT – (2008) 21 SOT 541 (Mum); b) Ms.Madhu Kaul V/s CIT –(2014) 263 ITR 54 (P&H); Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT -344 ITR 501 (P&H); c) d) CIT V/s Ved Parkash And Sons (Huf) (1994) 207 ITR 148 P H, ; e) ACIT V/s Sanjay Kumath (2014) 63 SOT 90 (Indore) f) Charanbir Singh Jolly V/s ITO (2006) 5 SOT 89 (MUM) g) CIT V/s K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59(Del) 7 5489/Mum/2015 7. The…