PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan

413 ITR 248High Court2019#3744 most cited

What is PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan authority for?

For capital gains computation, the date of allotment of a residential unit under a construction scheme is the date of acquisition, not the date of agreement or possession. This applies even if possession is delivered later, as the allotment letter confers the right to hold the property.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vembu Vaidyanathan · date of allotment · date of acquisition · capital gains · section 48 · long-term capital asset · CBDT circular · allotment letter · period of holding · agreement for sale · possession

Also reported as

101 Taxmann.com 436

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54Section 54FSection 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

cost inflation indexperiod of holdingsection 54eclong-term capital assetindexed cost of acquisitionsection 2(14)section 54section 53cost of improvementsection 2(47)section 48date of transfer

Judgments citing PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan

ITO - 25(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rajni D. Saini, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7120/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 7120/मुं/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Income Tax Officer- 25(3)(3), Room No.606, 6Th Floor, C-10, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Rajni D. Saini 6, Lalit Kunj, Dadabhai Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056. Pan: Aacps-7288-J ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailaja Rai "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Dr. K. Shivram With Shri Shashi Bekal सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 37, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 4/10/2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In Appeal Has Raised Eight Grounds Assailing The Findings Of Cit(A) Deleting Addition Of Rs.5,13,25,000/- U/S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Smt. Shailaja RaiFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram with Shri Shashi Bekal
Section 56(2)(vii)

…en the parties even if unregistered but preceded by a part payment of consideration through banking channel would suffice requirement of this proviso. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the decision in the case of PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan 413 ITR 248 (Bom). 3.1 The second proposition put forth by the ld.Counsel for the assessee, without prejudice to the primary submission is, that the date of allotment of immovable property is 19/05/2010. The last payment was made by the assessee on 17/12/2012. The stamp duty value of the property on the date of allotment was Rs.2.54 crores i.e. less than th…

Neen Singh, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1074/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmamrs. Neena Singh Vs. Ito, 141, Stanhill Drive, Surfers Ward-3(1)(2), Paradise, International Taxation Gold Coast, New Delhi Queensland, Australia Pan: Ezups2442R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…sidential unit can be stated to have acquired the property and accordingly benefit of indexation should be given. In this regard reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, 2019 SCC Online Bom 2290 : (2019) 413 ITR 248 : (2019) 308 CTR 302 and on the judgment of Supreme Court of India and Sanjeev Lal vs. CIT, Chandigarh, [2014] 46 taxmann.com 300 (SC). It was submitted that ITAT Bombay Bench has taken into account relevant provisions of law in Smt. Lata G. Rohra vs. DCIT [2008] 21 SOT 541 (Mumbai) to hold that benefit u/s 48 of indexation should be given on the…

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…

Chanan Lal Dhingra, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 914/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: - i. An addition of Rs. 4,10For Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50CSection 54

…fer is not a short-term capital asset, but a long-term capital asset. He also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 413 ITR 249 (Del.) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. V. Vaidyanathan (2019) 413 ITR 248 (Bom.) 7. The ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee, Shri Chanan Lal Dhingra and Shri Sanjay Kumar Dhingra jointly were allotted a Villa vide agreement dated 27th of January, 2010 by Hari Buildwell Pvt. Lt…

Toshvin Analytical Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-1 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7111/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…whether the asset transferred is a long term capital asset or a short term capital asset. We find that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan reported in 413 ITR 248 wherein it was held that, date of allotment would be relevant date for the purpose of determining the holding period of capital asset. It was also held that date of allotment so made shall be the relevant date for the purpose of capital gain tax as date of acquisition. It was also noted that the allottee gets title to the property on the issue of…

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 :…

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

…Mad 358). Therefore, in our view, a right to obtain conveyance of immovable property, was clearly " property " as contemplated by s. 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.2.11 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan [(2019) 413 ITR 248 (Bom.)] following the Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Tata Services Limited (supra), had held that the assessee gets title of property on the basis of allotment letter and payment of instalment was only a follow up action and taking delivery of possession is only a formality. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Bombay Hig…

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)

…7 Mad 358). Therefore, in our view, a right to obtain conveyance of immovable property, was clearly " property " as contemplated by s. 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 6.11 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan [(2019) 413 ITR 248 (Bom.)] following the Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Tata Services Limited (supra), had held that the assessee gets title of property on the basis of allotment letter and payment of instalment was only a follow up action and taking delivery of possession is only a formality. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Bombay Hig…

Shri D R Kumaraswamy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2958/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…asset pending execution of formal agreement spelling out all the exact terms and conditions for acquisition has been comprehensively settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan 101 Taxmann.com 436(Bom.) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has taken note of CBDT circular no. 471 dated 15 th October 1986 as well as CBDT circular 672 dated 16th Dec. 1993 and concluded that the assessee shall be deemed to have acquired rights in the property on the date of issue of allotment letter for the purposes of expression ‘capital asset’. The SLP agai…

Kalpana Paresh Dadia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD No. 30(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2904/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Smt. Kalpana Paresh Dadia Ito, Wd.30(2)(1), C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshakar 101, Hema Kunj, Mamlatdar 6Th Wadi, Cross Road, V/S Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Malad(W), Mumbai-400 064 Mumbai-400051 Pan : Aaapd5307P Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Smt. Kalpana Paresh Dadia ITO, Wd.30(2)(1), C-13, 6th Floor, Pratyakshakar 101, Hema Kunj, Mamlatdar 6th Wadi, Cross Road, v/s Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (E), Malad(W), Mumbai-400 064 Mumbai-400051 PAN : AAAPD5307P APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Bhupendra Shah CA Respondent by Shri S Michael Jerald,Sr DR Date of hearing 18-09-2019 Date of pronouncement 01-10-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order…

Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…income. It is Revenue’s contention that the assessee had acquired the new asset only when the agreement was entered into on 19.03.2013 i.e., after the stipulated period. We find that recently Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vembu Vaidyanath (2019) 413 ITR 248 (Bom) after considering the CBDT Circular No.471 dated 15.10.1986 and Circule No.672 dated 16.12.1993 has held that the date of issuance of allotment letter by the builder is the date of acquisition of property. 12. As far as the issue of deduction on four flats purchased by the assessee is concerned, the submission of the assessee that all th…

Sujauddin Kasimsab Sayyed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5498/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sujauddian Kasimsab Income Tax Officer-2(2), 2Nd Sayyed A-5, 202, Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Vs. Vaishali Lok Nagri Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan- Chs Ltd. Midc Road, 421301. Ambernath (E)- 421501. Pan No. Axops1247C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh & Mr. D.G.Pansari, Drs Last Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sujauddian Kasimsab Income Tax Officer-2(2), 2nd Sayyed A-5, 202, floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Vs. Vaishali Lok Nagri Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan- CHS Ltd. MIDC Road, 421301. Ambernath (E)- 421501. PAN No. AXOPS1247C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, AR Revenue by : Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh & Mr. D.G.Pansari, DRs Last date of Hearing : 15/03/2019 Date of pronouncement : 10/06/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This…