Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT

363 ITR 54High Court2014#3467 most cited

What is Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT authority for?

The period of holding a flat for capital gains purposes commences from the date of the allotment letter and the first installment payment, not from the later date of possession or registration.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT · period of holding · allotment letter · date of transfer · capital asset · long term capital gain · short term capital gain · section 2(42A) · cost of acquisition · section 48

Also reported as

43 Taxmann.com 417

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 136Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(42a)period of holdingindexed cost of acquisitionsection 53section 2(14)section 2(47)section 48section 54date of transfercost of improvementshort term capital gainlong term capital gain

Judgments citing Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s on the proposition that the period of holding is to be reckoned on the basis of issuance of letter of allotment and not from the date of registration. He also relied on some of the judgments which are as under:- In the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54. the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that on allotment of the flat and upon payment of the first installment, a right to hold the flat is conferred and mere fact that the possession was delivered later does not detract from the fact that the allottee was conferred a right to hold property on issuance of an allotment letter. In the case o…

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

ITA 851/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

…ional Mumbai Tribunal judgment (supra) in\nassessee's own case, the assessee has referred and relied upon the following\ncase laws which is supporting the case of assessee:-\n1. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT\n(2014) 363 ITR 54\n2 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan (2019)\n413 ITR 248\n3. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. Vembu Vaidyanathan\n[2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC)\n4. Anita D Kanjani v. ACIT being ITA No. 2291/Mum/2015\n5. Snehal Bimal Parekh v. PCIT (ITA No. 5489/Mum/2019) (ITAT, Mumbai)\n6 Fatema Jaffer Ghadiali…

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…assessee filed a Paper Book (PB) and in support of his contentions filed following Rulings of Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT as well as other Co-ordinate Bench and Hon'ble High Courts as under: i. Ms. Madhu Kaul v. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 417/225 Taxman 86/363 ITR 54 (Punj. & Har.). ii. CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari [2001] 117 Taxman 538/ [2000] 244 ITR 352/160 CTR 0165 (Cal. HC). iii. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (supra). iv. CIT v. Manjula J. Shah [2011] 16 taxmann.com 42/ [2012] 204 Taxman 691/ [2013] 355 ITR 474 (Bom.). v. Mrs. Seema Sabharwal v. ITO [2018] 91 taxmann.com 2/169 ITD 319 (Chd. - Trib.). v…

INDU BALA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 60(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3869/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

…f its registration on 25.11.2014.  Reliance is placed on the following judgements :  Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs A Suresh Rao 223 Taxmann 228(Kar)  Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs.Madhu Kaul v. CIT &Anr.[(2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H)]  Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain v CIT &Ors. [(2012) 344 ITR 501 (P&H)]  Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Services Limited [(1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom).]  Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan [(2019) 413 ITR 248 (Bom.)]  Hon’ble ITAT Bangalore,…

TANVI SANDEEP MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 151(2)Section 54

…ITA No.20/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Tanvi Sandeep Mathur, The Deputy Commissioner of C/o. M.S. Chhajed & Co., Income Tax, “Kamal Shanti”, Circle – 7(1), Beside Bank of Baroda, Ahmedabad. Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Vs. Naranpura, Ahmedabad – 380 014. [PAN – ANFPM 6538 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hem Chhajed, AR (VH) Revenue by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.07.2024 Date of Prono…

ACIT CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. MODESTY GARMENTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 183/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Acit Vs. M/S Modesty Garments, Circle-28(1), B-304, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aaafm1598F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Gupta, CA, Sh. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 194ISection 37(1)Section 40Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ACIT Vs. M/s Modesty Garments, Circle-28(1), B-304, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065 PAN AAAFM1598F (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 132/Del/2022 Arising out of ITA No. 183/Del/2020 Asstt. Year: 2014-15 M/s Modesty Garments, Vs. ACIT Circle-28(1), B-304, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 065. PAN AAAFM1598F (Appellant) (Respondent Assessee by: Sh. Mohit Gupta, CA, Sh. Neeraj Singh, CA, Sh. Nitin Sharma, CA Department by :…

RENU KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, INT.TAX 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Renu Khurana, Vs. Acit, H. No. 6480, Sector C-6, Intl. Taxation -2(1)(2), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Bbppk6150E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 48

…Vs. ACIT, ITA No.2558/Del/2010 for AY: 2007-08. 2. CIT Vs. Jindas Panchand Gandhi, 279 ITR 552 3. CIT Vs. S.R. Jeyashankar [2015] 373 ITR 120 (Mad.) 4. L. Vivekananda Vs. ACIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 67 (Bangalore – Trib.) 5. Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT, [2014] 363 ITR 54 (P&H) 5. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. The short issue arising for consideration is, in which financial year the assessee can be said to have acquired the property for the purpose of gr…

CHANDRASHEKHER RAMRAJ SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blechandrashekher Ramraj Singh V. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(3) 22-A, House No.4 108, Matru Mandir Sherley Rajan Road, Bandra (W) Tardeo, Nana Chowk Mumbai – 400050 Grant Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aanps7840R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwal & Shri Hemant Bahedia Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwal &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Chandrashekher Ramraj Singh v. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(3) 22-A, House No.4 108, Matru Mandir Sherley Rajan Road, Bandra (W) Tardeo, Nana Chowk Mumbai – 400050 Grant Road, Mumbai – 400 007 PAN: AANPS7840R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwal & Shri Hemant Bahedia Department by : Shri R.A. Dhyani Date of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by…

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…Dictionary. Edition 1985, “owner” means one who owns or holds something; one who has the right to claim title to a thing’ (Emphasis supplied) 14. The said decision was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court subsequently in Ms. Madhu Kaul v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 54/225 Taxman 86/43 taxmann.com 417. The Delhi High Court in CIT v. K. Ramakrishnan [2014] 225 Taxman 123/48 taxmann.com 55 has held that for the purpose of calculating period of holding we have to look and take into account the date since the assessee got ‘beneficial interest’ in the property. The Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Rama Rani Kalia [2013…

KARNA SINGH MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9729/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Anima, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 234BSection 234DSection 48Section 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “C” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.9729/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Shri Karna Singh The ACIT, Circle61(1), Mehta, S-68, Panchsheel Park, Civic Centre, Minto Malviya Nagar, South vs., Road, New Delhi. Delhi, Delhi PIN 1210 017 PIN – 110 002 PAN AAYPM5611P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri H.P. Agarwal, C.A. For Assessee : Shri Rajat Jain, C.A. & Shri Ashish Mendiratta, C.A. For Revenue : Ms. Anima, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement :…

GOVIND SINGH GREWAL ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 61(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3232/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Govind Singh Grewal, Vs Ito, 8-A, Panchsheel Marg, Ward-61(1), Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aghpg7795D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 2Section 54

…f allotment of property which is relevant for the purpose of computing holding period and not the date of registration of conveyance deed. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul vs. CIT, reported in 363 ITR 54, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the mere fact that possession was delivered later does not detract from the fact that the allottee was conferred a right to hold property on issuance of an allotment letter. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACI…

K S HANUMANTHA RAO,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

ITA 31/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.K.S.Hanumantha Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 54

…it is clear that for the purpose of holding an asset, it is not necessary that the assessee should be the owner of the asset based upon a registration of conveyance conferring title on him. 5.2.8 Similarly, in the case of Mrs.Madhu Kaul v. CIT & Anr. [(2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H)], the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court analysed various circulars and provisions of the Act that on allotment of flat and making first installment the assessee was conferred with a right to hold a flat which was later identified and possession delivered on later date. The mere fact that possession was delivered later, would not detract fr…

SRI MAHENDRASINGH RAMSINGH JADAV,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Jinita Chaterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54(1)

…holding an asset, it is not necessary that the 10 Sri.Mahendrasingh Ramsingh Jadav . assessee should be the owner of the asset based upon a registration of conveyance conferring title on him. 6.7 Similarly, in the case of Mrs.Madhu Kaul v. CIT & Anr. [(2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H)], the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court analysed various circulars and provisions of the Act that on allotment of flat and making first installment the assessee was conferred with a right to hold a flat which was later identified and possession delivered on later date. The mere fact that possession was delivered later, would not detract fr…

L. VIVEKANANDA,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1087/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, D.R

…ITA No.1087/Bang/2018 Shri L. Vivekananda, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri L. Vivekananda M/s. Vivek Hotels, 1294/1-B ACIT J.L.B. Road Circle-1(1), Residency Road Vs. Mysuru-570 005 Nazarbad Mysuru-570 010 PAN NO : AASPV6693A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri G.N. Bhat, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, D.R. Date of Hearing : 17.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2020 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee…

YOGESH MAVJIBHAI GALA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT- 25 , MUMBAI

ITA 3373/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodyogesh Mavjibhai Gala Pr.Commissioner Of Income 401, Bhanu Kunj, 43, Tax-25, 401/C-10, 4Th Floor, Swastik Society, N.S. Road No.3, Pratyaksha Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Vile Parle (West), Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 051

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Anupama D.Shukla, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…of allotment of the flat and not the date of giving of possession of flat which has to be considered for computing the holding period of 36 months. We further find that the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT & Anr. [2014] 363 ITR 54 (P&H), has also held that the mere fact that possession of the flat was delivered later, does not detract from the fact that the allottee was conferred a right to hold property on issuance of an allotment letter. It was further observed, that payment of balance instalments, identification of a particular flat and delivery of possession are consequ…

TRIPLE ESS INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR and Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…elivery of possession is only a mere formality. In support of his contention he relied upon the following case laws :- a. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT, Ludhiana (2012) 344 ITR 501 b. Ms. Madhu Kaul v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54 c. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v. K. Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59 d. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Jitendra Mohan (2007) 165 Taxman 524 (Delhi) e. Hon’ble Madra High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. R. Jeyashankar (2015) 373 ITR 120 (Madras) f. Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the ca…

JAYATI S. CHAKRABORTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7122/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjayati S Chakraborty Acit - 31(2) 1803/1804, B-Wing, Oberoi C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Woods, Mohan Gokhale Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400063. Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaopc5980B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Aarati Visanji With Sh. Salin R. Divatia-(Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Aarati Visanji with Sh. Salin R. Divatia-(AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54

…iod was over 36 month and she should get the benefit of LTCG as well as indexed cost of consideration from 2008 itself. The ld. AR for the assessee also relied on the CBDT circular No. 672 dated 16th December 1993 and the decisions of Madhu Kaul v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 54 (P&H), Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT[2012] 344 ITR 501 (P&H), Anita D Kanjani v. ACIT 23(1), Mumbai (ITA No. 2291/Mum/2015), Sneha Bimal Parekh v Pr. CIT, Mumbai (ITA No. 5489/Mum/2015), ACIT v. Sanjay Kumath (ITA No. 448/Ind/2017) , Simi Khanna v. ACIT (ITA No. 2076/Mum/2017) & Nitin Prakash v. DCIT, Thane. ITA No. 7122 Mum 2016-Jayati S Chakraborty…

RAMESH A RADHAKRISHNAN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 35(2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1244/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Hiro Rai, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…t directly apply to the facts of the case under hand. Further, post Jaimal K.Shah, we find that various higher judicial authorities, in catena of judgment, taken a view favorable to the assessee. Few of which are listed below:- 1. Madhu Kaul Vs CIT (P & H HC) 363 ITR 54 2. CIT Vs Ramakrishnan (Delhi HC) 363 ITR 59 3. CIT Vs S R Jeyashankar (Madras HC) 373 ITR 120 5.7 Viewed from any angle, we are unable to find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion of Ld. first appellate authority that the ITA.No.1244/Mum/2017 Ramesh A.Radhakrishnan Assessment Year- 2012-13 capital gains earned were Short Term in nature and…

ITO, WARD 35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. NALINI BOTHRA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1405/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1405/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Nalini Bothra. [Pan: Adrpb 5103 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri A. Kochar
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 1405/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITO, Ward-35(2), Kolkata -vs- Smt. Nalini Bothra. [PAN: ADRPB 5103 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT For the Respondent : Shri A. Kochar Date of Hearing : 13.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-10, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 219/CIT…

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/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) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Lakshay Goyal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/04/2018 Date of pronouncement 19/06/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)- II, New Delhi dated 12.0…

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2