Mumbai, in Voltas Ltd. v. ITO 7(3)(4), Mumbai

161 ITD 199Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#22901 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Mumbai, in Voltas Ltd. v. ITO 7(3)(4), Mumbai

Ivor D'Mello (Legal Heir of Late Ettie B. D'Mello), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 4470/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Vipul B. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi

Section 50CSection 54E

…ssee transferred lease right for sixty years in the Plot and not land itself, the provisions of sec. 50C cannot be invoked. We, therefore, hold that the full value of consideration in the instant case be taken as Rs.2.50 crores.” 5. VoltAs Ltd. Vs. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 199 (Mumbai-Trib) (Para 3.8 to 3.11) Provisions of Section 50C could not be applied to transfer of development rights of the land owned by assessee. 6. CIT Vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P.) Ltd. – [(2017) 389 ITR 68 (Bom)] Section 50C will not be applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings.” 8. Th…

Radharaman Constructions, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1582/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Radharaman Constructions Asst. Cit, Circle – 19(3), Ground Floor, Shri Kunj, Mumbai 3A Altamount Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 026

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: 27.10.2020

Section 154Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…sing Society Ltd. 17. In the case of Network Construction Company vs. CIT [2020] 119 taxmann.com 186 (Mum)(Trib.) held that provisions of section 50C could not be applicable to sale of development rights in respect of buildings. 18. In Voltas Ltd v ITO [2016] 161 ITD 199 (Mum)(Trib.) held that, the capital asset transferred by the assessee upon which long term capital gain has been computed by the AO is on account of transfer of Development Rights in the land. The land itself has not been transferred by the assessee. 19. In the case of ITO v Prem Gupta, ITA No.58Q3/M/2009 dated 28.03.2013 (Mum)(Trib.) the Tribuna…

Narendra Kumar Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centraql Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 12/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)(a)

…hat for invoking section 50C of the Act, the Assessing Officer was bound to make reference to the DVO under section 50C(2) of the Act, the Ld. counsel relied on following case laws: ❖ Sunil Kumar Aggarwal Vs CIT 372 ITR 83 (Cal)— Para -8 ❖ Voltas Ld. Vs. ITO 161 ITD 199 (Mumbai)— Para 4.1 Page 7 3.6 On the contrary, the Ld. DR on the issue of addition of Rs.49,12,040/- submitted that, (i) the assessee himself has shown these assets as capital asset in the return of income and shown long-term capital gain (LTCG) and short-term capital gain (STCG) on their sale and also claimed deduction under section 54F against…