Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.910/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile बिधम/ Shri Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 Co. No.147/Mum/2016 (Ita. No. 910/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2137J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals As Well As Cross Objection Against The Order Dated 27.11.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. Ita. No.910/M/15 Co. No. 147/M/2016 A.Y. 2011-12

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.910/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT-21(1) (Erstwhile बिधम/ Shri Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, ACIT-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado CHSL, VS Road, 1st Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 CO. No.147/Mum/2016 (ITA. No. 910/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Arvind Kumar बिधम/ ACIT-21(1) (Erstwhile Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, ACIT-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado CHSL, VS Road, 1st Floor, P…

Matoshree Realtors, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 18(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…chase of property. Therefore, holding period of the asset should be considered from the date of letter dated 25-06-2005. In this regard, he relied upon the following case laws:- Anita D Kayani vs ACIT (2017) 163 ITD 451 (Mum) Ms. Madhu Karva vs CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H) CIT vs Tata Services Ltd (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom) 11. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also carefully considered the case laws relied upon by the parties. The solitary issue that came up for our consideration is – whether, on the facts and…

ITO 22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Liladhar R. Tandel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicil Member

…ain which is to be computed by taking into account date of acquisition as 29/08/2003 and 08/09/2003. Period of holding should be computed from the date of allotment of the property as held in the following judicial pronouncements. 1. Madhu Kaul v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H HC) 2. CIT v. K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59 (Del HC) 3. CIT v. S R Jeyashankar (2015) 373 ITR120 9Mad HC) 4. CIT v. A Suresh Rao (2014) 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar HC) 5. Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT (2012) 344 ITR 501 (P&H_HC) 6. CIT v. Jitendra Mohan (2007) 165 Taxman 524 (Del HC) 7. CIT v. Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR52 (Guj HC) 8. CIT v. Anilabe…

Nandita Patodia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Smt. Nandita Patodia Income Tax Officer Ward 72, Mount Unique, 16(1)(1) Vs. 62A, Peddar Road, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Mumbai – 400 026 Mumbai - 400007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp0811D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

…ong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. In support of her claim, the learned representative of the assessee has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT and another [ 363 ITR 54] and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.R.Jeyshankar [373 ITR 120] and the order of Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Sharad Tadani [104 TTJ 567 etc. However, the Ld departmental representative has supported the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. On appraisal of the order passed by the Mumbai Tribuna…

Seeta Prabhu, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D.Jainसर्वश्री ए.डी. जैन, न्याययक सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1020/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08) बनाम/ Mrs.Seeta Prabhu, Income Tax Officer-26(1)4, C/O Mohanlal Jain & Co., Smt.K.G.Mittal Ayurvedik Vs. Chartered Accounts Firm, Hospital Building, 10, Chartered House, Charni Road, Ground Floor, Dr.C H Street, Mumbai-400002 Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…d acquired the beneficial interest to the property at least 96 per cent. of the amount was paid, i.e., by October 3, 1999. This court is supported in its findings by a Division Bench ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 54/43 taxmann.com 417.”” The case law relied upon by the ld.DR in this case are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present case, we therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decisions relied on by the ld.AR hold that the assessee acquired the ownership right in the flat on the date of letter of intent whe…

Sneha Bimal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…d acquired the beneficial interest to the property at least 96 per cent. of the amount was paid, i.e., by October 3, 1999. This court is supported in its findings by a Division Bench ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 54/43 taxmann.com 417.”” The case law relied upon by the ld.DR in this case are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the present case, we therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decisions relied on by the ld.AR hold that the assessee acquired the ownership right in the flat on the date of letter of intent whe…

Jayantilal Meghji Pokar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…case of K. Ramakrishnan, 363 ITR 59, held that letter of allotment given by HUDA is relevant for the purpose of computing holding period and not date of registration of conveyance deed. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ms. Madhu Kaul, 363 ITR 54, held that immediately on allotment on which assessee paid for instalment, even though possession of flat was delivered on a later date, the capital gain arising from sale of flat was a long term capital gain. Similar view has been taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Hilla J.B.Wadia, 216 ITR 376. 6. In view of the above judi…

Pravin L. Manania, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

…he assessee. The Ld. AR also contended that even on merits, the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act was to be allowed in view of the following decisions:- (i) L N Nagda (211 ITR 804) (Bom) (ii) Hilla Wadia (216 ITR 376) (Bom) (iii) Madhu Kaul (363 ITR 54) (P & H) (iv) Seetha Subramanian (59 ITD 94) (Mad) The Ld. AR contends that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act ought to be cancelled. 5 Assessment Year: 2007-08 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR emphatically supported the impugned order of the Ld. CIT. It was submitted that a perusal of the order of assessment for…

ITO 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jayshree H. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Asst

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

…agreement with the builder and accordingly the said property when it was sold is a long term capital amount . In support of the above proportion, the Ld. AR for the assessee placed reliance, inter alia, on the decisions of: (i) Ms. Madhu Kaul vs. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54(P&H) (ii) Circular No. 471 dt. 15/10/1986; (iii) Smt. Vandana Rana Roy (ITA No. 6173/Mum/2011 dt. 07/11/2012; (iv) B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd. (ITANO.2003/Del/2013 dt 30/06/2014) 3.2.3 In the light of the above judicial precedents and facts of the case on hand, it was prayed that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that since the aforesai…