Madathil Brothers v. DCIT

301 ITR 345High Court2008#10757 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Madathil Brothers v. DCIT

SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2855/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 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. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…f limitation, because it is a wide amplitude and includes every possible interest that a person may hold and enjoy. Our view is fortified by the following decisions:- a. Syndicate Bank Ltd. vs Addl. CIT 155 ITR 681 (Kerala), b. Madthil Brothers vs DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 345 (Madr.) c. CIT vs Tata Services ltd. 122 ITR 594 (Bom.) d. Bafna Charitable Trust vs CIT 230 ITR 864 (Bom.) e. V. Rangaswamy Naidu vs CIT 31 ITR 711 (Mad.) f. Addl. CIT vs Ganpati Raju 119 ITR 715 (AP) g. S. Vaidyanathna Swamy vs CIT 119 ITR 369 (Mad.) h. P. J. Mathew vs ITO 323 ITR 592 (Ker.) 12 A.Y. 2016-17 Sonal Ashish Soni An Individual In t…

JENNIFFER CHAKRAVARTY,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 514/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

…apital asset' refers to property of any kind 'held' by an assessee. In contradistinction to the word 'owner' or 'owned' definition uses the phrase 'held'. This view is also confirmed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Madathil Brothers v. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 345 (Mad), wherein it was held that, " a reading of section 45 shows that capital gains tax is chargeable on "any profits or gains Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty ITA No.400/Kol/2016 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 arising from the transfer of the capital asset". Read in the context of the definitions of "capital asset" and "transfer" the section carries no wor…

DCIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT JENNIFER CHAKRABORTY, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 400/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54

…apital asset' refers to property of any kind 'held' by an assessee. In contradistinction to the word 'owner' or 'owned' definition uses the phrase 'held'. This view is also confirmed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Madathil Brothers v. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 345 (Mad), wherein it was held that, " a reading of section 45 shows that capital gains tax is chargeable on "any profits or gains Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty ITA No.400/Kol/2016 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 arising from the transfer of the capital asset". Read in the context of the definitions of "capital asset" and "transfer" the section carries no wor…

M/S. JAI LAXMI DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal are partly allowed

ITA 5578/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Jai Laxmi Developers (P) Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Central Circle-21, 78-B, Sector-2, Dda Flats, New Delhi Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Iii, Delhi-96 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 263Section 50C

…, allotment rights etc. The sequitur, therefore, is that the word “HELD or HOLD” is not synonymous with right over the asset as an „owner‟ and has to be given a broader meaning and wider meaning. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble madras High Court in 301 ITR 345. In the present case by obtaining the orders of the Noida Authority of transfer memorandum on 17.09.2002, the assessee got a right to get the lease hold right for 90 years from that date. It conferred the right upon the assessee to hold that particular property from that date. Such is also the view taken by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Cou…

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. MRS. SUNITA, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1359/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Raj BishnoiFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 2(47)(v)Section 269USection 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 The ITO Vs. Mrs. Sunita Ward-4, Panchkula D/o Mohindra Singh H.No. 90, Sec-2, Panchkula PAN No. COGPS0273H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Raj Bishnoi Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh Date of hearing : 19/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2018 ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula dt. 13/07/2017. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised…

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA DHILLON, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1358/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Raj BishnoiFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(ii)Section 2(47)(v)Section 269USection 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 The ITO Vs. Smt. Seema Dhillon Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 90, Sec-2, Panchkula PAN No. AGXPD1603P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Raj Bishnoi Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh Date of hearing : 19/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2018 ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Panchkula dt. 11/07/2017. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised the followi…

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

…n 2(14) of the Act. The aforesaid decision has been noted with approval by Supreme Court in D.P. Sandhu Bros., Chembur P. Ltd.: 273 ITR 1 (SC).To the same effect is the recent decision of the Hon‘ble Madras High Court in the case of Madathul Brothers v. DCIT: 301 ITR 345 (Mad.) h) In view of the above, it could be argued that, if premium paid for obtaining lease is disallowed as capital expenditure on the ground of vesting substantial leasehold rights with the assessee, then such leasehold rights ought to be considered as a separate asset, which would be covered within the meaning of ―business or commercial righ…

KRISHIRAJ TRADING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the revenue ‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6524/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6524/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Income B/9 Th Floor, Trade World, Tax Circle-6(2) बिधम/ Kamala Mill Compd., S.B. Marg, R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6840/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) A.C.I.T. Circle-6(2) M/S. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, B/9 Trade World, Kamala Mill बिधम/ M.K. Road, Compd., S.B. Marg, Lower Churchgate, Parel, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400013. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaack2257N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. TradshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 144ASection 14ASection 234B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “ए” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री अमभत शुक्रा, न्मायमक सदस्म एवं श्री याजेश कुभाय, रेखा सदस्म के सभक्ष । BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No 6524/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Krishiraj Trading Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of Income B/9 th floor, Trade world, Tax Circle-6(2) बिधम/ Kamala Mill Compd., S.B. Marg, R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400013. Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. N…

STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOL - I, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2004-05 Stewarts & Lloyds Of India Ltd. -Versus- C.I.T., Circle-1, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aaecs 0445G) (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, ACA & Shri Prakash Singh,ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…“held by an Assessee” only means that “de jure” ownership is not a condition precedent for regarding a person as owner of a capital asset. The Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Madathil Brothers Vs. DCIT 301 ITR 345 (Mad) wherein it was held as follows: “….the definition of "capital asset" refers to property of any kind "held" by an assessee. In contradistinction to the word "owner" or "owned", the definition uses the phrase "held". A reading of s. 45 as it stands today, shows that capital gain is chargeable on "any profits or gains arising from the transfe…

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5749/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Section 4(1)

…f limitation, because it is a wide amplitude and includes every possible interest that a person may hold and enjoy. Our view is fortified by the following decisions:- a. Syndicate Bank Ltd. vs Addl. CIT 155 ITR 681 (Kerala), b. Madthil Brothers vs DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 345 (Madr.) 7 Vembu Vaidyanathan c. CIT vs Tata Services ltd. 122 ITR 594 (Bom.) d. Bafna Charitable Trust vs CIT 230 ITR 864 (Bom.) e. V. Rangaswamy Naidu vs CIT 31 ITR 711 (Mad.) f. Addl. CIT vs Ganpati Raju 119 ITR 715 (AP) g. S. Vaidyanathna Swamy vs CIT 119 ITR 369 (Mad.) h. P. J. Mathew vs ITO 323 ITR 592 (Ker.) In the light of the above, it…