ITO (132 ITD 499) (iv) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR (Trib) 137) (v) ITO v. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (

68 SOT 110Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#11799 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Judgments citing ITO (132 ITD 499) (iv) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR (Trib) 137) (v) ITO v. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (

KHAZAN SINGH ANAND,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 40(5), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5837/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Khazan Singh Anand, Vs. Ito, Kothi No. 2, Gf Kailash Enclave, Ward-40(5), Pitampura, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaapa1872A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50C

…of leasehold rights in land and plot. The issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Ritz Suppliers Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO 182 ITD 227 (Kol), Pyaribai K Jain Vs. CIT 175 ITD 177 (Mum), Kencast Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO 68 SOT 110(Pune). In view of the above binding precedents we allow ground No. 2 of the appeal which challenges that provision of section 50C of the Act do not apply on transfer of leasehold right in plot of land and direct the ld AO to delet the addition of Rs 2210,000/- made u/s 50C of the act . Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed. 10. Ground…

SANKALPAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 6010/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14)

For Appellant: ShriSubodhFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

…Vs- Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd., 61 SOT 104 (Mum Trib.) 27 I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 Sankalpan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (v) Farid Gulmohamed-Vs- ITO (International Taxation), 46 CCH 300 (Mum Trib.) (vi) Kancast Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- ITO, 68 SOT 110 (Pune Trib.) 33. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 34 Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we notice that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Greenfield Hotels and Estates Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 5053/Mum/2012 has passed its order in favour of the assessee by…

RIECO INDUSTRIES LIMITEED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1627/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1627/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…ove its case that the said land was leasehold land. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P.) Ltd. (2017) 389 ITR 68 (Bom) and Pune Bench of Tribunal in Kancast (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2015) 68 SOT 110 (Pune-Trib.). 6. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue had moved an application for adjournment, which was refused as the matter stands covered by order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the issue. 7. We have heard the riva…

M/S. MANISH FILMS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 152/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 2Section 50BSection 50C

…[ITA 152/Ind/2015] [M/s. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd. ITO-3(1) C/o Shri Jagdish Sharma Indore बनाम/ J-59, MIG Colony, Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AADCM7398D Appellant by Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Shri Kapil Shah, A.Rs Respondent by Shri Rajib Jain, D.R. Date of Hearing: 27.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 10.01.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by…

ITO 22(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. LILADHAR R. TANDEL, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross

ITA 959/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicil Member

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…li Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013 dated 09.10.2015)  Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 7231/Mum/2010 dated 30.11.2015)  ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR (Trib) 137)  ITO vs. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (155 TTJ 294)  Kancast P. Ltd. vs. ITO (68 SOT 110) (Pune)  M/s. Heatex Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No.8197/Mum/2010] decided on 24.07.2013 Liladhar R. Tandel ITA No.959/Mum./2014 C.O No.153/Mum/2017 15. Respectfully following the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for holding that deeming provisions of Section 50C is not applicable to the ca…

ITO 22(3)(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MEGHI PARBAT PATEL, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6390/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-22(3)(2) Shri Meghji Parbat Patel, 3Rd Floor, Room No.307, Prop. G.D.Enterprises, बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Flat B-5, Plot No.46, Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Anand Niketan Chs, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Afmpp7902H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…010 dated 30.11.2015) (iii) Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (132 ITD 499) (iv) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR (Trib) 137) (v) ITO vs. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (155 TTJ 294) 7 Shri Meghji Parbat Patel ITA Nos.6390/Mum/2014 vi) Kancast P. Ltd. vs. ITO (68 SOT 110) 5.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and contended that section 50C of the Act is a special provision for computing capital gains in certain cases and would include not only land as such but also leasehold rights in land. 5.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and caref…

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…Trib.)  DCIT v. Tejinder Singh: 147 TTJ 87 (Kol. Trib.) Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 398 of 484  Kancast v. ITO: 68 SOT 110 (Pune Trib.) j) Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following decisions, wherein it has been held that, by applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the expression "business or commercial rights of similar nature" in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, need not answer the description of "knowhow, patents, trademarks, licenses or franchises" but…

FARID GULMOHAMED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5136/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farid Gulmohamed Income Tax Officer C/O. M/S. B.C. Dastur & Co. (Internationla Tax) 3(1) Vs. Reliance Bldg., 3Rd Floor Schindia House, Ballard Estate 269, D.N. Road, Mumbai Mumbai 400038 Pan - Aefpg3094K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…) Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 7231/Mum/2010 dated 30.11.2015) (iii) Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (132 ITD 499) (iv) ITO vs. Hari Om Gupta (45 ITR (Trib) 137) (v) ITO vs. Pradeep Steel Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (155 TTJ 294) vi) Kancast P. Ltd. vs. ITO (68 SOT 110) 5.2 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and contended that section 50C of the Act is a special provision for computing capital gains in certain cases and would include not only land as such but also leasehold rights in land. 5.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and caref…

KUMARPAL MOHANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 18(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the limited issue in relation to ground No

ITA 7231/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain, Income Tax Officer, 2, Omkar Apts., Ward 18(1)(3), Poo. Ibp Resid. Complex, Vs. Mumbai Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 013 Pan: Aabpj 9082C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Mandar Vaidya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Ranjan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, D.R

Section 50C

…the transfer of land or building or both, however, the leasehold rights or the tenancy rights are different from the ownership of land or building itself. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the following decisions: 1. Kancast (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO – 2015 68 SOT 110 (Pune – Trib.) 2. M/s. Fordham Pressings (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA No.6033/Mum/2010] decided on 25.04.2012 3. M/s. Heatex Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No.8197/Mum/2010] decided on 24.07.2013 4. ITO vs. M/s. Pawaskar Shipping & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.872/Mum/2008] decided on 29.07.2011 In view of the settled position on this i…