Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT

348 ITR 325High Court2012#4093 most cited

What is Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT authority for?

Earnest money received on the sale of an asset, when invested in specified bonds under Section 54EC, is eligible for the benefit of Section 54EC, even in the context of reopening an assessment.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT · Section 54EC · earnest money · investment in bonds · capital gains exemption · reassessment · Section 54E · CBDT Circular No. 359

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(38)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefitsection 147(b)section 35ddsection 72asection 54ecsection 147(a)true and full disclosuresection 115jaasection 54esection 2(31)section 39resulting company

Judgments citing Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2010) 323 ITR 97 High Court of Bombay (iii) Balkrishna Hiralal wani v. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 High Court of Bombay (iv) Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 275 High Court Bombay (v) Praveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 High Court of Bombay (vi) Purity Teachtextile (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 High Court of Bombay (vii) Carlton Overseas (P) Ltd. V.ITO (2009) 318 ITR 295 High Court of Delhi (viii) CIT v. Keane India Ltd. ITA 230/2012 dated 20-04-2012 High Court Of Delhi (ix) 12. The Ld. DR relied the order of the AO. We have heard the parties and perused t…

SHRI PRINCEPREETJIT SINGH,RANJIT NAGAR vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…adi Vs. ITO in (1992) 11 CCH 0081, ITAT Pune.  ACIT Vs. Dr. S. Balasundarm in (2013) 36 CCH 107, ITAT Chennai.  CIT-II Pune Vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar in Income Tax Appeal No. 1009 of 2014 dated 14.12.2016, Bombay HC. 8  Ms. Parveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT, 348 ITR 325, Bombay HC 1.1.7. Hence, the investment in agricultural land made by ‘A’ after the receipt of advance consideration but prior to the execution of the sale deed was eligible for deduction u/s 54B and the Worthy PCIT has erred in objecting on the same in the order u/s 263. 2. InvestmentPrior to 14.08.2013 in Residential Plot claimed u/s 54F 2.1. Th…

SHITAL PIYUSHKUMAR PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 407/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 54E

…lds that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts before the Tribunal in Bhitkulal Chandak HUF (supra). The Revenue does not dispute the same before us. Moreover, on almost identical fact, this Court in Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha v. Dy. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 325/[2013] 212 Taxman 66/[2012] 28 taxmann.com 274, held that the earnest money received on sale of asset. When invested in specified bonds under Section 54EC of the Act, is entitled to the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act, this was in the context of reopening of an assessment and reliance was placed upon DBDT Circular No. 359 dated 10th May, 1983…

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

…ribunal holds that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts before the Tribunal in Bhikulal Chandak HUF (supra). The Revenue does not dispute the same before us. Moreover, on almost identical facts, this Court in Ms.Parveen P. Bharucha Vs. DCIT, 348 ITR 325, held that the earnest money received on sale of asset, when invested in specified bonds under Section 54EC of the Act, is entitled to the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act. This was in the context of reopening of an assessment and reliance was placed upon CBDT Circular No.359 dated 10thMay, 1983 in the context of Section 54E of the Act. 7. Mr.B…

JT. CIT (ODS) - CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…on the basis of material already on record at the time of assessment would merely tantamount to change of opinion which is not allowed even within the period of four years. We apply the ratio of the decision in the case of Parveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT [(2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom)] in this regard. Accordingly, we allow Ground no.2 of the assessee’s appeal and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. 102. Ground no. 3 of the appeal relate to claim made by the assessee u/s 35DD of the Act. 103. This ground is similar to Ground no.3 of the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1466/Mum/2021 for AY 2013-14. We h…

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…on the basis of material already on record at the time of assessment would merely tantamount to change of opinion which is not allowed even within the period of four years. We apply the ratio of the decision in the case of Parveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT [(2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom)] in this regard. Accordingly, we allow Ground no.2 of the assessee’s appeal and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. 102. Ground no. 3 of the appeal relate to claim made by the assessee u/s 35DD of the Act. 103. This ground is similar to Ground no.3 of the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1466/Mum/2021 for AY 2013-14. We h…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…on the basis of material already on record at the time of assessment would merely tantamount to change of opinion which is not allowed even within the period of four years. We apply the ratio of the decision in the case of Parveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT [(2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom)] in this regard. Accordingly, we allow Ground no.2 of the assessee’s appeal and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. 102. Ground no. 3 of the appeal relate to claim made by the assessee u/s 35DD of the Act. 103. This ground is similar to Ground no.3 of the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1466/Mum/2021 for AY 2013-14. We h…

M/S. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT CIR-1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

…on the basis of material already on record at the time of assessment would merely tantamount to change of opinion which is not allowed even within the period of four years. We apply the ratio of the decision in the case of Parveen P. Bharucha v. DCIT [(2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom)] in this regard. Accordingly, we allow Ground no.2 of the assessee’s appeal and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. 102. Ground no. 3 of the appeal relate to claim made by the assessee u/s 35DD of the Act. 103. This ground is similar to Ground no.3 of the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1466/Mum/2021 for AY 2013-14. We h…

KHANDESH BUILDERS LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 268/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.268/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Khandesh Builders Ltd., 7, Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon – 425 001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan: Aaack 8222 H बनाम / V/S. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Jalgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg & Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

…' by the learned assessing officer. To support his submissions, the ld.AR of the Assessee also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mrs. Praveen P Bharucha vs. Dy.CIT 348 ITR 325 (BOM) and Cedric De Souza Faria vs. Dy.CIT 400 ITR 30 (BOM). 7. The main contention of the ld.AR is that during the original assessment proceedings, all the documents asked by the Assessing Officer (AO) were submitted by the assessee. The ld.AR invited our attention to the copy of the notice under section 142 of the Act dated 23.06.2010 issued b…

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 3768/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(3)Section 148

…affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs 29 Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) We think this thread runs through the various provisio…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…axman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) " 3rd proviso – Merger of issue with CIT(A) & ITAT order ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 13 The claim of deduction was already disallowed by the assessing…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…axman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) " 3rd proviso – Merger of issue with CIT(A) & ITAT order ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 13 The claim of deduction was already disallowed by the assessing…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…axman 11 (Del) • ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT and UOI: 325 ITR 471 (Bom) • Rose Services Apartments (P) Ltd vs DCIT: 348 ITR 452 (Del) • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs DCIT: Writ petition No. 8562/2007 (Del) • Parveen P Bharucha vs DCIT and UOI: 348 ITR 325 (Bom) • Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs DCIT: 351 ITR 23 (Del) • NDT Systems vs ITO: 255 CTR 113 (Bom) • Rambagh Palace Hotels P Ltd vs Dy CIT: 350 ITR 660 (Del) " 3rd proviso – Merger of issue with CIT(A) & ITAT order ITA Nos. 3722, 3723/Del/2014, 2310/Del/12 & CO. No.258/Del/2012 13 The claim of deduction was already disallowed by the assessing…

ACIT (E) 20(3), MUMBAI vs. SEEMA DILIP VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 582/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2007-08 Acit-20(3), Ms. Seema Dilip Vora, Room No.622, 71/72, Rajkamal Apartment बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Rajkamal Marg, Rajkamal Vs. Mumbai Studio, Near Gandhi Hospital, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabpv0816C

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 37 Ms. Seema Dilip vora (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) We think this thread runs through the various provis…

DCIT 7(1)-1, MUMBAI vs. GOLDMOHUR DESIGN & APPAREL PARK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, M/S Goldmohur Design & Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aadcg1613M

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, M/s Goldmohur Design and Circle-7(1)-1, Apparel Park Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.23, Ground Floor, Goldmohur Textile Mill, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, M.K. Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AADCG1613M Shri Abhijit Patankar-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा…

BAIJNATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7000/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Baijnath Melaram, Acit, Range-14(3), C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaafb 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - Ar यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue By Shri T.A. Khan - Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2018 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 194C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, „बी‟,म ुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “B” BENCHES, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री यभीत कोचय, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri RAMT KOCHAR, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Baijnath Melaram, ACIT, Range-14(3), C/o Mangaldas D. Shah & Co., बनाम/ Mumbai. 506, Lotus House, 5th Floor, Vs. 33-A, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. AAAFB 2675 E याजस्व की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Dhirendra M. Shah - AR यनधाारयती की ओर से / Revenue by Shri T.A. K…

MAHARASHTRA STAE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4900/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2002-03 DCIT-5(2), M/s Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, PWD Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAACM6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/s Maharashtra State DCIT-5(2), Road Develo…

DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4519/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2002-03 Dcit-5(2), M/S Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, Pwd Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/S Maharashtra State Dcit-5(2), Road Development R. No.571, बनाम/ Corporation Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Pwd Compound, Near M.K. Road, Priyadarshni Park, Mumbai-400020 Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm6833C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri B.S. Sharma & Shri Dalpat Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi-Dr

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Years: 2002-03 DCIT-5(2), M/s Maharashtra State Road R. No.571, Development Corporation बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Limited, Vs. M.K. Road, PWD Compound, Near Mumbai-400020 Priyadarshni Park, Nepeansea Road, Mumbai-400036 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AAACM6833C Assessment Years: 2002-03 M/s Maharashtra State DCIT-5(2), Road Develo…

ITO 2(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. CANARA BANK SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(1)(4), M/S Canara Bank Securities Room No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, Maker Chamber-Iii, Vs. M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacg2218H

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 56

…dings u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee company relied upon the following decisions to advance and support its contentions: (i) CIT v. Max India Limited 295 ITR 282 (Bom.) (ii) CIT v Gabriel India Limited 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (iii) Mrs Praveen P Bharucha v. DCIT 348 ITR 325(Bom.) The assessee company also submitted that in the orders dated 19th March 2013 u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT has observed 9 Canara Bank Securities Ltd. that this issue is not free from doubt that the income earned by the assessee company from fixed deposits kept with the banks could be assessed under the head ‘Income from other sources’ instea…

DCIT 7(3), MUMBAI vs. CHEMITO TEHCNOLOGIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4644/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dcit-7(3) M/S Chemito Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Road, 8, Mohatta Bhavan, Off Mumbai-400020. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mumbai-400018. Pan No. Aaact1930B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri H.N.Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2017

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N.Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

…. He relies inter alia on the decision in Tao Publishing Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom), Sound Casting (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom), Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom), Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha vs. DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the validity of reassessment. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. Addition of Rs.14,59,00,000/- The AO has mentioned that the assessee-company has paid a comm…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2