Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana

340 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2012#1778 most cited

What is Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana authority for?

A transfer of immovable property by way of sale is legally valid only through a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance. Unregistered instruments like agreements to sell, General Power of Attorney, or wills do not transfer title or create an interest in the property.

64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Suraj Lamp & Industries v State of Haryana · transfer of immovable property · registered deed of conveyance · agreement to sell · General Power of Attorney sales · section 2(47) Income Tax Act · Registration Act 1908 · date of transfer · capital gains property · legal title transfer

Also reported as

14 Taxmann.com 103

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 54Section 2(47)Section 143(1)Section 1908Section 234BSection 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 53asection 2(47)(v)section 53section 2(47)section 54bdate of transfersection 54transfer of capital assetright to receivesection 50csection 50

Judgments citing Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana

Chet Ram Verma, Etah vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Etah

ITA 783/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 783/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) Chet RamVerma S/o Shri Pooran Vs.. ITO- Ward, 3(1), Singh, Shivsinghpur, Etah. Etah. PAN:ADZPR2257E Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri. Rishi Aggarwal CA along with Sh Chet Ram assessee Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 02.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2020 ORDER Per, Laliet Kumar JM.: The present appeal is filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), dated 11.09.2018 fo…

Shri Pramod Somnath Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1404/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kanani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…issue on merits, it is necessary to evaluate the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding this ground. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) referred the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of Haryana (2012) 340 ITR 1 (SC), in his order while deciding the issue. The Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with this ground in paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of his order, however, the relevant portion contained in paragraph No.3.2 of his order is reproduced hereunder: “3.2 Decision: I have considered the facts mentioned in the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant carefully. The…

Suresh Brotehrs, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 553/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Suresh Brothers Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 511, Panchratna, 14, Tax-16(3), Income-Tax Office, Mama Parmanand Marg, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Opera House,Mumbai 400004 Tardeo Road,Mumbai – 400007

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani &For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

…when the „agreement to sell‟ was registered. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the Tribunal in the aforesaid case had deliberated upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2012) 340 ITR 1 (SC). It was averred by the ld. A.R, that the Tribunal while disposing off the aforesaid appeal had observed, that as the transfer of ownership was not the issue to be decided in the case before them, therefore, the application of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble P a g e | 6 ITA No. 553/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 M/s Suresh Brothers V…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Cresent Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj TopraniFor Respondent: Shri Neil Phillip
Section 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.5/Mum./2017 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8(1), Mumbai v/s M/s. Crescent Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 21, Nirmal Nariman Point ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AACCC4894R ITA no.7614/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) M/s. Crescent Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 21, Nirmal Nariman Point ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AACCC4894R v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–44, Mumbai…

Dr.Syed Rahmatullah Azizullah, Gulbarga vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Kalaburagi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 148Section 234ASection 50CSection 50C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 240 & 241/Bang/2019 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12 Dr. Syed Rahmatullah Azizullah, H.No. 1-655/C, Timapuri The Income Tax Officer, Compound, Vs. Ward – 3, Railway Station Road, Kalaburagi. Station Bazar, Gulbarga – 585 102. PAN: AGDPS6044H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 01.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member Both these appeals are filed by…

Dr.Syed Rahmatullah Azizullah, Gulbarga vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Kalaburagi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 240/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 148Section 234ASection 50CSection 50C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 240 & 241/Bang/2019 Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12 Dr. Syed Rahmatullah Azizullah, H.No. 1-655/C, Timapuri The Income Tax Officer, Compound, Vs. Ward – 3, Railway Station Road, Kalaburagi. Station Bazar, Gulbarga – 585 102. PAN: AGDPS6044H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 01.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member Both these appeals are filed by…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal Dilip Sankhe, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4376/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore, AR
Section 292BSection 54FSection 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

…e agreement for transfer of shares between the appellant and M/s Privilege Industries Ltd. was entered into on 18.03.2010. The AO : 10 : relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries Pvt Ltd. vs State of Haryana 340 ITR 1 (SC) and disallowed the appellant's claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 5.2. In the course of appellate proceedings, the the appellant had made submissions as below: Re: The Ld. AO's action of denying exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on account of investment made in new residential house (Ground Nos. 2 & 3). 17. The Ld. AO in para 4.9 of the impu…

Bhopal Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 656/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 251Section 45Section 48(2)

…y the assessee who has acted as an agent. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State ITA 656/JP/2016_ 20 Bhopal Singh Shekhawat Vs ITO of Haryana (2012) 340 ITR 1. The ld. AR has also relied upon the following decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal: (i) Gyan Chand Agarwal Vs ACIT in ITA No. 266/JP/2017 order dated 10/07/2017. (ii) Shri Suraj Narain Khatoria Vs ITO in ITA No. 1043/JP/2011 dated 27/05/2013. The ld AR has further submitted that as per the record, the properties were purchased by…

Smt.Manju Mahendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

…st of improvement was deductible. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court considered the decision in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727/108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) (para 3), Suraj Lamp & Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2012] 340 ITR 1/[2011] 202 Taxman 607/14 taxmann.com 103 (SC)(para 3) and Gulshan Malik v. CIT [2014] 223 Taxman 243/43 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi). The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs 21 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Sundarmal Kothari (302 ITR 286)(Mad.) observed/held as under:- “The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. The assessees, Shri Sardarmal Kothari and…

ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Shashanka Ghosh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

…t of improvement was deductible. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court considered the decision in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727/108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) (para 3), Suraj Lamp & Industries (P.) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2012] 340 ITR 1/[2011] 202 Taxman 607/14 taxmann.com 103 (SC)(para 3) and Gulshan Malik v. CIT [2014] 223 Taxman 243/43 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi). The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sundarmal Kothari (302 ITR 286)(Mad.) observed/held as under:- “The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. The assessees, Shri Sardarmal Kothari and Shri Shanthilal Kothari, file…

M/S. Sunnygold Wineries Private Ltd., Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 703/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT DR
Section 38

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.703/PUN/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. Sunnygold Wineries Private Limited. C/o- Ramkrishnan & Co., Chartered Accountants, Office No.418, Amanora Chamber, Amanora Town Centre, East Block, Hadapsar, Karadi-bypass Road, Pune-411 028. PAN : AACCS6640R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range…

Shri Ajay Wahi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 336/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ment of income in his hands. Hence the assessee could not be said to have failed to disclose fully and truly all relevant material necessary for assessment. He has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd., 340 ITR 1 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Court has held that power of attorney holders are not the owners of the land. 3.2. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that it is a clear case of non disclosure of the transaction of sale of two properties by the assessee in the return of income, therefore, undisputedly the assessee has failed to dis…

Shri. Rajesh Atalram Rupani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3111/MUM/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Atalram Rupani Dcit Circle -23(3) 6Th Floor, Makhija Chamber, Vs. Matru Mandir, 196 Turnover Road, Bandra Grant Road, (W), Mumbai400007 Mumbai-400050 Pan No. Afapr9279R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S. M. Makhija, Ar Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S. M. Makhija, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…g actual possession of the property as well as without having registration of the said property in his name, the AO relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Suraj Shri Rajesh Atalram Rupani 4 Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Haryana 340 ITR 1 (SC), denied the claim of exemption made u/s 54F of the Act. From the above facts, the AO concluded that the entire arrangement was made to give money on interest to the builder and the consideration received was nothing but interest chargeable under the head “income from other sources”. Therefore, the AO brought to tax income of Rs.15,66,000/- as…

Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

…n the context of Section 22 is not warranted. Moreover, in the absence of any part performance as contemplated under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Supreme Court held in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2012] 340 ITR 1 that registration of sale deed alone completes the transfer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Ltd. (supra) that registration date will be taken as the date of transfer only in the absence of part performance as contemplated under section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. Till 31st March 1988, in the abs…

Kishore Kumar Kataruka, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2787/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amar Gahlot & ChandniFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

…and on the date of registration which effected after the A.Y. 2006-07. In this regard we also find in support of law settled in Shri Raj Rani Devi Ramna Vs. CIT-(1993) 201 ITR 1032 Patna, Suraj lamp and Industries P. Ltd. Vs. State of Harayana and Anr. (2012) 340 ITR 1 Supreme Court. The assessee admitted that the sale-deed was registered in the year 2011-12 but he received full A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 consideration in the A.Y. 2008-09, therefore, he offered the same to tax under the head of long term capital gain. In the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the Long term capital gain has been…

M.M. Exports, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 42(1), Kolkata [Merged With Ward - 43(1)], Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 238/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Raja Ram Chowdhury, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 2(47)Section 50(1)

…f section 2(14) of the act r.w. s.2(47). This decision is of no relevance to the facts of the present case. The ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps & Industries (P)Ltd vs State of Haryana 340 ITR 1 (SC). We have perused the aforesaid decision and we find that the aforesaid decision was rendered in the context of the transfer of immovable property in the light of provisions of Registration Act. The decision was rendered in the context of sale which usually takes place by executing agreement for sale coupled with an instrument of power of attor…

ITO 25(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Vinayak A Rakvi (HUF), Mumbai

ITA 3561/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3561/M/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 25(1)(4) बिधम/ Vinayak A Rakvi (Huf) C-12. 7Th Floor, R.No. 203, Leela Park, Yari Rd, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai –Pin:400061 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aachv1157P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas V. MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3561/M/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO 25(1)(4) बिधम/ Vinayak A Rakvi (HUF) C-12. 7th Floor, R.No. 203, Leela Park, Yari RD, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, BKC Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai –Pin:400061 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AACHV1157P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vishwas V. Mehendale Department by: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing:27.09.2017 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement:. 09.1…

Mrs Mrs. Asha Kanodia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 34/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal No. 34/Del/2016 Assessment Year : 2012–2013 Mrs. Asha Kanodia, Income Tax Officer, 212 – Kailash Hills, Vs. Ward : 14 (1), East Of Kailash, New Delhi. N E W D E L H I – 110 065. Pan : Aaepk 1295 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Danday, Sr. D. R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 24Section 54Section 56Section 68

…5, 8 and 46 of the paper book i.e. copies of possession letter, terms of agreement and financial statements of Pushpanjali Investrade Pvt. Ltd. The ld. AR also submitted that the decision in the cased of Suraj Land & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, 340 ITR 1 (SC) relied upon by the Assessing Officer having distinguishable facts are not applicable in the case of the assessee as it is based on general provisions of law. 3.3 The ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the possession letter has not been signed by the purchaser Pushpanjali I…

Lal Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 515/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 148Section 45(3)Section 50CSection 69C

…the firm in AY 2006-07. Hence, no capital gain is chargeable to tax u/s 45 of the Income tax Act in the year under consideration. 5.1 The AO for considering the date of transfer as 31.07.2007 has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 340 ITR 1. This decision was given in context of The Transfer of Properties Act, 1882, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and The Registration Act, 1908. In that context, it was held that the registered deed of conveyance is the only mode of legal transfer. This decision is not in context of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore not applicable. In the present case, the…

Sneh Lata Dwivedi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 501/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ended that the practice of transferring the property by executing POA, handing over possession and accepting the payment is well accepted by different judicial forms including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 1. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the sale deed of the above property was executed by Shri Mahesh Sharma on 23-10-2007 in favour of Smt. Kusum Singhvi as power of attorney holder of the assessee but the said document revealed that Shri Mahesh Sharma was acting a general power of attorney holder and nowhere it was stated that Shri Mahesh Shamra had alr…