Navneet Kumar Thakkar v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4 (110 ITD 525)

ITO, New Delhi vs. Smt. Shimla Devi, New Delhi

In the result, we reverse the order of the learned CIT appeal and restore the order of the learned assessing officer; consequently, ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 6524/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Shimla Devi, Ward-41(3), C-29, New Multan Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Afypd6835R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 50Section 50C

…AO adopted the circle rate of the properties holding them to be an industrial land where the claim of the assessee is that they are agricultural land. The learned CIT appeal surprisingly deleted the whole addition relying upon the decision of the tribunal in 110 ITD 525, which was pertaining to assessment year 2003 – 04. The relevant assessment year before the learned CIT appeal in the impugned appeal is assessment year 2011 – 12. The provisions of section 50C have undergone amendment with effect from 01/10/2009. This amendment has been ignored by the learned CIT – A. The provisions of section 50C as it stood th…

ITO, WD-2(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Sheila Sen, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 554/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

Section 250Section 45(3)Section 50C

…Section 50C of the Act which is a deeming provision, cannot be applied as, Section 45(3) of the Act is also a deeming provision by following the order of the Jodhpur Bench of the ITAT in the case of Navneet Kumar Thakkar v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4, [2008] 110 ITD 525. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The ld. D/R, submitted that, the ld. CIT(A) was in error in holding that the re- opening of the assessment is bad in law. Further it was submitted that Section 50C of Act, applies as it is a statutory provision. On the issue of re-opening, the ld. D/R, relied on the judgment of Commissioner of In…

ITO, WD-2(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Nirmalendu Sen, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 23/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 554/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………..…. Respondent (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] C.O. No. 28/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sheila Sen.................................................…………………………….……………..……………………....…. Appellant (L/H Of Late Bimalendu Sen) 16, Convent Road Kolkata -14 [Pan : Alpp 5489 B] Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolkata....…….............................................…………….…….……...Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square 7Th Floor Room No.21 Kolkata – 700 069

Section 250Section 45(3)Section 50C

…Section 50C of the Act which is a deeming provision, cannot be applied as, Section 45(3) of the Act is also a deeming provision by following the order of the Jodhpur Bench of the ITAT in the case of Navneet Kumar Thakkar v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4, [2008] 110 ITD 525. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. The ld. D/R, submitted that, the ld. CIT(A) was in error in holding that the re- opening of the assessment is bad in law. Further it was submitted that Section 50C of Act, applies as it is a statutory provision. On the issue of re-opening, the ld. D/R, relied on the judgment of Commissioner of In…

Shri Shrikant Shukla, Indore vs. The ACIT, Circle 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 101/IND/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena1. आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No.100/Ind/2017 2. आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No.101/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 1. Shri Krishnakant Shukla Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 654, Khajrana Income Tax 5(1) Above Pipal Chowk Indore Near Ram Mandir Indore 2. Shrikant Shukla 564, Khajrana Above Pipal Chowk Near Ram Mandir Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellants अपीलाथ" ""यथ" /Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" "था.ले.सं./Pan: Bdnps – 9624K & Bdnps – 9624K अपीलाथ" क" ओर से अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellants By अपीलाथ" क" ओर से अपीलाथ" क" ओर से Shri Avinash Agrawal ""यथ" क" ओर से ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By ""यथ" क" ओर से ""यथ" क" ओर से Shri Mohd. Javed सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख 21.03.2017 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement उ"ोषणा क" तारीख उ"ोषणा क" तारीख उ"ोषणा क" तारीख 27.03.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench These Appeals Are Filed By The Above-Mentioned Assessees Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 50C

…that the case of CIT vs. Sugantha Ravindram (2013) 32 taxmann.com 274(Madras) was applicable in the facts of present case as the property was not registered in the year of sale. 7. The ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the case of Navneet Kumar Thakkar 110 ITD 525 (Jodh) was applicable in the facts of present case as the property was not registered in the year of sale. 8. The findings of ld. CIT(A) are contrary to facts and law. 9. That the order of learned CIT(Appeals) is a non-speaking order and therefore illegal and bad in law.” 2. Since the facts involved in both these appeals are exactly similar…

Shri Krishnakant Shukla, Indore vs. The ACIT, Circle 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/IND/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena1. आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No.100/Ind/2017 2. आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No.101/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 1. Shri Krishnakant Shukla Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 654, Khajrana Income Tax 5(1) Above Pipal Chowk Indore Near Ram Mandir Indore 2. Shrikant Shukla 564, Khajrana Above Pipal Chowk Near Ram Mandir Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellants अपीलाथ" ""यथ" /Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" "था.ले.सं./Pan: Bdnps – 9624K & Bdnps – 9624K अपीलाथ" क" ओर से अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellants By अपीलाथ" क" ओर से अपीलाथ" क" ओर से Shri Avinash Agrawal ""यथ" क" ओर से ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By ""यथ" क" ओर से ""यथ" क" ओर से Shri Mohd. Javed सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing सुनवाई क" तारीख सुनवाई क" तारीख 21.03.2017 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement उ"ोषणा क" तारीख उ"ोषणा क" तारीख उ"ोषणा क" तारीख 27.03.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench These Appeals Are Filed By The Above-Mentioned Assessees Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 50C

…that the case of CIT vs. Sugantha Ravindram (2013) 32 taxmann.com 274(Madras) was applicable in the facts of present case as the property was not registered in the year of sale. 7. The ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the case of Navneet Kumar Thakkar 110 ITD 525 (Jodh) was applicable in the facts of present case as the property was not registered in the year of sale. 8. The findings of ld. CIT(A) are contrary to facts and law. 9. That the order of learned CIT(Appeals) is a non-speaking order and therefore illegal and bad in law.” 2. Since the facts involved in both these appeals are exactly similar…

Ketan Chhotalal Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2901/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2901/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Ketan Chhotalal Sheth, Ito – 12(3)(4), बनाम/ 6/12, 1St Floor, Mumbai. V. Bouna Casa, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadps9601E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…ital asset. It was also contended that unregistered document is not covered u/s 50C of the Act by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pravin Gandhi in ITA No. 2216/Mum/2009 and in the case of Navneet Kumar Thakkar v. ITO reported in (2008)110 ITD 525(Jod)(SMC). ITA 2901/Mum/2012 5 The ld. CIT(A) observed that in the instant case by virtue of the allotment letter dated 26th July, 1992, the assessee was offered Flat No. 601 in the 6th floor, Pujit Plaza, situated at Plot No. 67, Sector 11, Belapur,Navi Mumbai. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) observed that no flat was in existence as on the date of the…

Navneet Kumar Thakkar v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-4