Jethalal D. Mehta v. DCIT

Gangaram Vallabhji Soni, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2020-21

…received for transfer of additional FSI cannot be subjected to Capital gain tax, since there was no cost of acquisition. In this regard, the assessee mainly placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai bench of Tribunal rendered in the case of Jetha Lal D Mehta (2 SOT 422) and other decisions rendered by the co-ordinate benches. 6. However, a perusal of the agreement entered by the assessee with the developer, which is titled as “AGREEMENT (individual member agreement) FOR PERMANENT ALTERNATE AGREEMENT” would show that the Society, in which the flat owned by the assessee was located, has obtained the land from the…

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

…ice, the Assessee submitted that the capital gains arising from transfer of TDR‟s cannot be computed as no cost can be attributed to the acquisition of TDR‟s by placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jethalal D. Mehta vs. DCIT: (2005) 2 SOT 422 (Mum.) and the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Shetty: (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC). The Assessing Officer was of the view that the cost of acquisition of TDRs could be taken as cost of acquisition of land surrendered. Accordingly, the Assessee was directed to furnish details of cost of acquisition of land surrend…

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

…ice, the Assessee submitted that the capital gains arising from transfer of TDR‟s cannot be computed as no cost can be attributed to the acquisition of TDR‟s by placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jethalal D. Mehta vs. DCIT: (2005) 2 SOT 422 (Mum.) and the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.C. Srinivasa Shetty: (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC). The Assessing Officer was of the view that the cost of acquisition of TDRs could be taken as cost of acquisition of land surrendered. Accordingly, the Assessee was directed to furnish details of cost of acquisition of land surrend…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…ax liability in connection therewith. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decision wherein the judicial authorities have upheld the view that on sale of TDR is not taxable as the computation mechanism fails. • Jethala D. Mehta vs. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 422 • JTO vs. Lotia Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. (2008) 12 DTR (Mum.) Tub. • New Shailaja CHS vs. JTO JTA No.512/M/2007, Bench B, dtd.02-12-08 (Mum.) • Maheshwar Prakash Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. vs. ITO (2009) 121 TTJ Mumbai 641 Further, while calculating the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT), on book profit, the company has considered profit on sale of TDR as not ta…

ITO 31(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Llaln & Co, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodthe Income Tax Officer- M/S Lalan & Co. 31(2)(2) C/O. Jogeshwari Petrol Supply Co. 102, C-13 Pratyakshaar S.V. Road, Jogeshwari West, Bhavan Mumbai-400102 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan – Aaafl2403N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…i (1988) 172 ITR 95 (Bom). On the basis of its aforesaid deliberations it was held by the Tribunal that the assessee was an investor and not a developer. (ii) The Tribunal observed that in view of its earlier decision in the case of Jethalal D Mehta vs. DCIT (2 SOT 422) the assignment of rights to receive TDRs was not liable to tax. (iii) Further, it was observed by the Tribunal that since the assessee had obtained the Development Right Certificate (for short „DRC‟) from BMC only on 09.05.2005, hence the assesses income from sale of TDR was otherwise also assessable to capital gains tax in the next A.Y. 2006- 07.…

Romiel Samuel, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “D” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI NK PRADHAN, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 437/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Romiel Samuel The Income Tax Officer, F-2/Karmatak Society, Mogul Ward 18(3)(3), Mumbai Vs. Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) PAN No. AAJPS1156Q Assessee by : Shri Hari Om Tulsian, AR Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari, DR Date of hearing: 03-05-2018 Date of pronouncement : 13-06-2018 AadoSa / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SING…

Rajnikant D Shroff, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…f compensation for the discomfort caused is capital receipt, hence, cannot be taxed. For such purpose, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Kaushal K. Rangia v/s ITO, ITA no.2349/Mum./2011, order dated 31.1.2012; ii) Jethalal D. Mehta v/s DCIT, [2005] 2 SOT 422 (Mum.); iii) ITO v/s Shri Hemandas J. Pariyani, ITA no.2508/Mum./2010, order dated 8.2.2012; 10 Rajnikant D. Shroff iv) ACIT v/s Shri Ishverlal Manmohandas Kanakia, ITA no.3053/ Mum./2010, etc., order dated 8.2.2012; v) Maheshwar Prakash–2 Co–operative Housing Society Ltd. v/s ITO, [2009] 118 ITD 223 (Mum.); vi) Deepak S. Shah v/s ITO, [2008] 29…