Vidarbha Veneere Industries Ltd. v. ITO

45 SOT 257Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#17933 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43CASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50C

Judgments citing Vidarbha Veneere Industries Ltd. v. ITO

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Nagpur vs. Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 279/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roydcit, Central Circle-2(1), Khare & Tarkunde Nagpur Vs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 235, Shivaji Complex, Dharmpeth, Nagpur Pan : Aaack 7184 N Department Assessee Assessee By : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. Luthra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

…LJ 402 (Bom. HC) 4 ii) Sadoday Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Charity Commissioner in WP No. 4543/2010, dt 23.06.2011 (Bombay HC at Nagpur) iii) Vidarbha Veneere Industries Ltd. vs. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 223 (Bom. HC) iv) Arif Akhatar Hussain vs. ITO [2011] 45 SOT 257 (Mumbai) v) ACIT vs. Dattani Development [2016] 72 taxmann.com 330 (Mumbai – Trib.) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated that section 43CA applies only to transfer of tangible immovable property being land or building or both, and not to intangible rights such as TDRs. It was submitt…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Nagpur vs. Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 279/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roydcit, Central Circle-2(1), Khare & Tarkunde Nagpur Vs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 235, Shivaji Complex, Dharmpeth, Nagpur Pan : Aaack 7184 N Department Assessee Assessee By : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. Luthra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

…LJ 402 (Bom. HC) 4 ii) Sadoday Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Charity Commissioner in WP No. 4543/2010, dt 23.06.2011 (Bombay HC at Nagpur) iii) Vidarbha Veneere Industries Ltd. vs. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 223 (Bom. HC) iv) Arif Akhatar Hussain vs. ITO [2011] 45 SOT 257 (Mumbai) v) ACIT vs. Dattani Development [2016] 72 taxmann.com 330 (Mumbai – Trib.) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated that section 43CA applies only to transfer of tangible immovable property being land or building or both, and not to intangible rights such as TDRs. It was submitt…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Nagpur vs. Khare and Tarkunde Infrastructure Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 279/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roydcit, Central Circle-2(1), Khare & Tarkunde Nagpur Vs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 235, Shivaji Complex, Dharmpeth, Nagpur Pan : Aaack 7184 N Department Assessee Assessee By : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. Luthra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

…LJ 402 (Bom. HC) 4 ii) Sadoday Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Joint Charity Commissioner in WP No. 4543/2010, dt 23.06.2011 (Bombay HC at Nagpur) iii) Vidarbha Veneere Industries Ltd. vs. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 223 (Bom. HC) iv) Arif Akhatar Hussain vs. ITO [2011] 45 SOT 257 (Mumbai) v) ACIT vs. Dattani Development [2016] 72 taxmann.com 330 (Mumbai – Trib.) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated that section 43CA applies only to transfer of tangible immovable property being land or building or both, and not to intangible rights such as TDRs. It was submitt…

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)

…es to the land in question."The" ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapaida (supra) supports this view..." 4.11 The Id. Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in ArifAkhatar Hussain vs ITO 12(2X1), Mumbai [2011] (45 SOT 257), considered an identical case and held asunder (emphasis supplied): "9. The .main contention of the learned AR is that the development rights does not amount to transfer of land or building and therefore the provisions of section 50C are not applicable. It is to be noted that the definition of transfer in the Income-tax Act, is not similar to tha…

ACIT RG 25(3), Mumbai vs. Dattani Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 5075/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5075/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Acit – 25(3), M/S Dattani Development, बनाम/ C-11, R. No. 308, 100, Shreeji Darshan, V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, 1St Floor, S.V. Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Kandivali (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 067. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabfd4969Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Miss Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 5O

…nsfer of developmental right. The A.O. has rightly applied the provisions of section 50C of the Act to the transfer of development rights executed by the assessee. The ld. DR relied on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in Arif Akhtar Hussain v. ITO reported in 45 SOT 257(Mum). It is submitted that the assessee vide agreement dated 17th February, 2007 entered into with Rushi Construction for transfer of development rights wherein the total consideration was Rs. 30 lacs and as against the sale consideration of Rs 30 lacs , the stamp duty value was Rs.1,84,13,500/- and hence the gain arising was chargeable to tax I…

Vidarbha Veneere Industries Ltd. v. ITO (45 SOT 257) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax