Rubab M. S. Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM)

91 ITD 429Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#6748 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Rubab M. S. Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM)

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…asset given by assessee was more than market price. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 76. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay)…

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…ly placed on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2012 (iii) CIT v. Daulat Mota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iv) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (v) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (vi) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 5. The Ld.AR has also stated that reopening was made based on change of opinion is bad-in-law for which reliance is placed on following decisions” 4 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT(LTU) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…asset given by assessee was more than market price. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 76. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay)…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…ly placed on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2012 (iii) CIT v. Daulat Mota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iv) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (v) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (vi) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 5. The Ld.AR has also stated that reopening was made based on change of opinion is bad-in-law for which reliance is placed on following decisions” 4 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC…

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

…ly placed on following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) Relevant extracts from explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2012 (iii) CIT v. Daulat Mota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iv) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (v) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (vi) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 5. The Ld.AR has also stated that reopening was made based on change of opinion is bad-in-law for which reliance is placed on following decisions” 4 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. ACC…

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6082/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…asset given by assessee was more than market price. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 55. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (i…

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATES CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4669/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…asset given by assessee was more than market price. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 55. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (i…

ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4556/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145A

…asset given by assessee was more than market price. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon following decisions: (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (ii) CIT v. DaulatMota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iii) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (iv) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (v) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 55. The Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions wherein it is held that amendment brought by Finance Act 2012 is not prospective in nature. (i) CIT v. Puja Prints [2014] 360 ITR 697 (Bombay) (i…

BALUBHAI MUSTUFABHAI MAHIDA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Balubhai Mustufabhai Mahida, D.C.I.T., Post Valak, Valak Kamrej, Circle-2(2), Vs. Surat-394180 Surat. Pan No. Bkdpm 8643 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54BSection 55A

…(i) CIT Vs Gauragiben S Shodhna (2014) 108 DTR 442 (Guj) (ii) CIT Vs Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom) (iii) CIT Vs Daulal Mohta (HUF) (2014) 360 ITR 680 (Bom) (iv) Pradeep G Vora 58 taxmann.com 110 (Mum Trib)/(2015) 154 ITD 118 (Mum) (v) Rubab M Kazerani 91 ITD 429 (Mum-TM). (vi) Jagrutiben V Patel Vs ITO Ward 2(2)(2), Surat and Bharvinaben V Patel Vs ITO Ward 2(2)(2), Surat ITA No. 650 & 651/Ahd/2017) (vii) Shri Mahadevbhai Mohanbhai Naik (ITA No. 820/Ahd/2016) (viii) CIT Vs Nitin Jayantilal Shah 48 SOT 16 (Ahd. Trib) (ix) Prembhai Kanjibhai Tandel Vs ITO 47 CH 724 (Ahd. Trib). 18. On the other hand, the l…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. PANYAM CEMENT & MINERAL INDUSTRIS LIMITED , NANDYAL

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

ITA 1963/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 53A

…s entered into by the assessee in the AY 2006-07. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions: (a) Chaturbu] Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs C1T(Bom) 260 ITR 491 (b) Dyaneswar N Mulik Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani Vs JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM) 91 ITD 429 (d) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria in RE(AAR) 294 ITR 196 5. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing”. 4. Ld.Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution process took place and the NCLT, Amaravati Bench vide order dt.25-06-2021 accepted :- 4 -: ITA Nos.1039 & 1963/Hyd/2018 C.O…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. PANYAM CEMENTS & MINERAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NANDYAL

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are partly allowed and the C

ITA 1039/HYD/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 53A

…s entered into by the assessee in the AY 2006-07. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions: (a) Chaturbu] Dwarakadas Kapadia Vs C1T(Bom) 260 ITR 491 (b) Dyaneswar N Mulik Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) 98 TTJ 179 (c) Rubab M Kazerani Vs JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM) 91 ITD 429 (d) Jasbir Singh Sarkaria in RE(AAR) 294 ITR 196 5. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing”. 4. Ld.Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution process took place and the NCLT, Amaravati Bench vide order dt.25-06-2021 accepted :- 4 -: ITA Nos.1039 & 1963/Hyd/2018 C.O…

VIJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 33(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 5244/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Vijay Kumar Seth, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 8, Vasant Enclave, Tax, Circle-33(1), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxps6514Q Assessee By : Sh. Karan Kumra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

For Appellant: Sh. Karan Kumra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 55A

…r section 55A is bad in law under the facts and circumstances of the case. This issue, in our considered opinion, is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment in the case of Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. Joint CIT reported in [2004] 91 ITD 429 (Mum) (TM). Further, the assessee also covered by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, the case of Smt. KrishnabaiTingre v. ITO reported in [2006] 101 ITD 317 (Pune) wherein it has been held that reference to the DVO can only be made in cases where the value of capital asset shown by the assessee is less than its fair market value of la…

ITO, WD-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PIONEER IRON & STEEL CORPORATION PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 203/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.203/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward-3(3), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Pioneer Iron & Steel Corporation (P) Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 4Th Floor, 6, Tarachand Ganguly Street, Howrah – Chowringhee Sq., Kolkata – 700 069. 711202. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcp 6093 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri R. K. Patodi, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 55A

…ur considered opinion is covered in favour of the assessee and M/s. Pioneer Iron & Steel Corporation (P) Ltd. Assessment Year: 2011-12 against the Revenue by the judgment in the case of Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani vs. Jt. CIT (2005) 97 TTJ (Mumbai)(TM) 698 : (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mumbai)(TM). Further the assessee also covered by the Third Member (sic) decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, the case of the Smt. KrishnabaiTingre vs. ITO (2006) 103 TTJ (Pune) 216 : (2006) 101 ITD 317 (Pune) wherein it has been held that reference to DVO can only be made in cases where the value of capital asset shown by the assessee is…

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 250/CTK/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53ASection 54F

…53A for transfer of Property Act. The possession of land was taken by the builder in part performance of the contract for transfer of the property. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decisions in the cases of Rubab M. S. Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM), 91 ITD 429, and Lalitha Ramaswamy v. ITO(ITAT-Mum), 75 ITD 293, etc. in support of the conclusion that the landed property was given possession on dt.15.1.2007 to the builder in part performance of the contract for transfer of property within the meaning of the provisions of section 2(47)(v). Hence, long term capital gain has arisen during the FY 2006-07.…

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 214/CTK/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53ASection 54F

…53A for transfer of Property Act. The possession of land was taken by the builder in part performance of the contract for transfer of the property. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decisions in the cases of Rubab M. S. Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM), 91 ITD 429, and Lalitha Ramaswamy v. ITO(ITAT-Mum), 75 ITD 293, etc. in support of the conclusion that the landed property was given possession on dt.15.1.2007 to the builder in part performance of the contract for transfer of property within the meaning of the provisions of section 2(47)(v). Hence, long term capital gain has arisen during the FY 2006-07.…

VIVINA CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 15(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4872/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am M/S Vivina Co. Op Hsg Society Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rg 15(2) Ltd. Vs. S.V. Rd, Andheri (W), Mumbai Mumbai-400 058 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaaav2507L Assessee By .. Surji D. Chheda, Ar Revenue By .. B.S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 05-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 05-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 50CSection 55A

…e Assessing Officer to the DVO u/s 55A is bad in law under the facts and circumstances of the case. This issue, in our considered opinion, is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment in the case of Rubab M.Kazerani reported in 91 ITD 429 (Mum(TM). Further the assessee also covered by the Third Member decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, the case of Krishnabhai Tingore Vs. ITO reported in 101 ITD 317 (Pune) (TM) wherein it has been held that reference to DVO can only be made in cases where the value of capital asset shown by the assessee is less than its fair market value of…

SHUBHA VICHARE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1124/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1124/Mum/2013 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Smt.Shubha Vichare बिाम/ Income Tax Officer, No.7, Varuna Defence Office Ward 19(2)(4), Vs. Society, Linking Road, Mumbai. Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400054 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Adtpv4719M अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms.Tasneem Varawala प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.112015 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :13.1.2016 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Tasneem VarawalaFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje
Section 55ASection 80I

…e law: a) CIT V/s Puja Prints (2014)360 ITR 697 (Bom) b) CIT V/s Daulal Mohta HUF, ITA No.1031 of 2008 c) DCIT V/s Chaturbhuj Vallabhdas (HUF) (2011) 130 ITD 230 d) Smt Krishnabai Tingre V/s ITO (2006) 101 ITD 317 (Pune) e) Ms.Rubab M Kazerani V/s JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 f) Vijaykumar M Shah V DCIT (2010) 2 ITR 116 g) Smt Amiya Bala Paul V CIT (2003) 262 ITR 407. He therefore prayed that the long term capital loss claimed by the assessee be allowed. 4. On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the valuation report submitted by the assessee has no legal basis and also no legal sanctity. Accordingly, he relied on…

Rubab M. S. Kazerani v. JCIT (ITAT, Mum-TM) (91 ITD 429) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax