Mumbai in Aarti Sanjay Kadam v. ITO

172 ITD 362Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#19496 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1908Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 17 of Indian Registration ActSection 17(1A) of Indian Registration ActSection 1882

Judgments citing Mumbai in Aarti Sanjay Kadam v. ITO

Devi Dayal, Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…to be discharged by the assessee/land owners. For buttressing this proposition, he took us through the alleged Collaboration Agreements as well as the following judgements : 1. CIT Vs Najoo Dara Deboo 218 taxman 473 Allahabad HC 2. Aarti Sanjay Kadam vs ITO 172 ITD 362 Mumbai ITAT 3. Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 421 ITR 46 Supreme Court 4. C.S. Atwal vs. CIT 59 taxmann.com 359 P&H HC 5. CIT VS. Balbir Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 Supreme Court 6. CIT vs Atam Prakash Sons 219 CTR 164 Delhi HC 7. K. Radhika vs DCIT 149 TTJ 736 Hyderabad ITAT 8. K.V. Satish Babu [HUF] vs. ITO 37 NYPTTJ 802 Bangalore ITAT 9. PCIT…

ACIT, Central Circle -1(3), Nagpur vs. Shri Ashok Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 413/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)

…r consideration as per the Joint Development Agreement and no consideration was also received in the year under consideration. Considering the same, the CIT(A) placing reliance on the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Aarti Sanjay Kadam reported in 172 ITD 362 (Mum.), which in turn, considering the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas reported in 260 ITR 491 (Bom.), held that the assessee therein is liable to tax for capital gain in the year of receipt of constructed area and not in the year of entering into development agreement. Further, placing reliance on the…

ACIT-Central Circle -1(3), Nagpur vs. Shri Ajay Vasantrai Trivedi, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 412/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)

…r consideration as per the Joint Development Agreement and no consideration was also received in the year under consideration. Considering the same, the CIT(A) placing reliance on the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Aarti Sanjay Kadam reported in 172 ITD 362 (Mum.), which in turn, considering the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas reported in 260 ITR 491 (Bom.), held that the assessee therein is liable to tax for capital gain in the year of receipt of constructed area and not in the year of entering into development agreement. Further, placing reliance on the…

Biswajit Bose, New Panvel vs. Pr CIT -1, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and order of Ld

ITA 1322/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shree Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbiswajit Bose B103, Balaji Niwas, Plot No-107-108, Sector-8, New Panvel, Panvel-410206 Pan No. Acxpb9332K ....Appellant Pr Cit-1 Thane Room No-7, 6The Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-400604 ...Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma & S.SriramFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 263

…urt held that no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) (v) would take place until the builder constructed said property and handed over a portion of the same to assessee as per terms of agreement. 11. The ITAT Mumbai in Aarti Sanjay Kadam v. ITO [2018] 172 ITD 362 (ITAT- Mum.), in similar set of facts, held that where per the terms of development agreement entered between assessee and developer, the assessee receive built-up residential area on completion of project, it could not be said that capital gain had accrued in the year of agreement. 12. It is apparent from the above that the AO has clearly exami…

Mumbai in Aarti Sanjay Kadam v. ITO (172 ITD 362) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax