Kushal K. Bangia v. ITO

18 Taxmann.com 31Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#13138 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also reported as

50 SOT 1

Sections most often in play

Section 2(24)Section 45 Section 147 Section 250 Section 143(3)Section 45(1)Section 54 Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 45 section 2(24)liable to tax income from other sources section 147 total income person

Judgments citing Kushal K. Bangia v. ITO

SHOBHANA DINESH TRIVEDI,VALSAD vs. ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1042/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 45(1)Section 54

…bai ITA No.1139/Mum/2024 (ITAT, Mumbai) 5. Narayan Devarajan Iyengar vs. ITO [2023] 152 Taxmann.com 188 (Mumbai Trib.) 6. Jitendra Kumar Soneja vs. ITO, Wd-6(3)(3), Mumbai [2016] 72 Taxmann.com 318 (Mumbai-Trib.) 7. Kushal K Bangia vs. ITO, Wd-21(1)(2) [2012] 18 Taxmann.com 31 (Mum.) (ITAT, Mumbai) 8. Viren Vashi vs. ITO, 16(3)(3), Mumbai ITA No.3830/Mum/2023 (ITAT, Mumbai) 9. Vinod Murlidhar Chawal vs. ITO, Wd-23(3)(5), Mumbai ITA No.3206/Mum/2022 (ITAT, Mumbai) 10. Ajay Parasmal Kothari vs. ITO, Wd-30(1)(1), Mumbai ITA No.2823/Mum/2022 (ITAT, Mumbai) 11. Smt. Delilah Raj Mansukhani vs. ITO, 35(1)(3), Mumbai ITA…

MOHAMMED FAKHRE ALAM SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-52, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6513/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Mohammed Fakhre Alam The Assessing Officer, Shaikh, Ward-17(2)(3), New Usmaniya Washing, Vs. Mumbai. Noor Mansion, 111, Janjikar Street, Crawford Market, Mumbai-400003. Pan : Bhops3293R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana

Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

…efore us the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of coordinate Bench in various case and one of the case of co-ordinate Bench in case of Kushal K Bangla v. Income Tax Officer (2012) 50 SOT 1 (MUM), wherein 5 exactly on identical facts, Tribunal has held the similar receipt as capital receipt in taxable by observing in Para 4 as under: - "In our considered view, it is only elementary that the connotation of income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions o…

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMABI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 418/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 417 & 418 /Mum/2025 (A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ) Krishnakan Sharma (LH of Vs. ITO – 23(3)(5) Late vimaladevi Sharma) 1st Floor, Room No. B/7/32, MIG Colony, 121, Matru Mandir, Bandra East – 400051. Grant Road, Mumbai – 400007 PAN/GIR No. BBLPS8724E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hitesh Shah Revenue by Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: These two appeals have been fil…

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 417/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250

KUNNAMA V BALAKRISHNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2577/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(2) 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, Mig Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepb0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee, Despite The Fact That The Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On Previous Five (5) Occasions. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.25,21,508/- Made By Ao By Treating The Hardship Compensation Fund As “Dividend Income” Received From The Residential Society.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ ITO-23(2)(2) 1st Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, MIG Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAEPB0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आद…

PRADYOT B. BORKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Subhash RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.4070/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Pradyot B. Borkar 179–C, MIG Colony ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN – AADPB2722R v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–19(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Subhash Ratnaparkhi Revenue by : Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing – 06.01.2020 Date of Order – 17.01.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging order dated 14th March…

ITO, WD-7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPNAY LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 797/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.797/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Ito Ward-7(3), Kolkata, Vs. M/S Energy Development P-7, Chowringhee Square, Company Limited, R.No.17, 5Th Floor, Kolkata- Edcl House, 1A, Elgin 700 069 Road, Kolkata-700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 6969 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : None "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Ms.Vandana Bhandari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: ` The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Viii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.145/Cit(A)-Viii/Kol/13-14, Dated 27.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income On Dated 14.10.2010, For A.Y.2010-11. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & The Ao Framed Assessment U/S.143(3) Treating The Forfeited Amount Of Rs.12,40,00,000/- As Revenue Income In Respect Of 75000 Warrants. The Assesse Under Consideration Had Forfeited 75000 Warrant Amounting To Rs. 12,40,00,000/- Allotted To Promoters & Other Investors

For Appellant: Ms.Vandana BhandariFor Respondent: None

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN JM, & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.797/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) ITO Ward-7(3), Kolkata, Vs. M/s Energy Development P-7, Chowringhee Square, Company Limited, R.No.17, 5th Floor, Kolkata- EDCL House, 1A, Elgin 700 069 Road, Kolkata-700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCE 6969 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : None "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Ms.Vandana Bhandari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 07/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronounc…

KISHORE D PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3796/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shri Kishre D. P Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 501, Ashar Villa, Plot Ward No. 21(2)(3) Mumbai Vs. No. 242, Near Taiml Sangham Hall Sion (E), Mumbai-400022 Pan No.Aslps3244H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri. Rs Bindra, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. B.S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 12-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 45Section 56

…efore us the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of coordinate Bench in various case and one of the case of co-ordinate Bench in case of Kushal K Bangla v. Income Tax Officer (2012) 50 SOT 1 (MUM), wherein exactly on identical facts, Tribunal has held the similar receipt as capital receipt in taxable by observing in Para 4 as under: - “ In our considered view, it is only elementary that the connotation of income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of…