Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

…on issuance of an allotment letter. The payment of balance amount and delivery of possession are consequential acts that relate back to and arise from the rights conferred by the allotment letter upon the assessee. 12. In the case of Vinod Kumar Jain vs CIT 344 ITR 501 it was held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that conjoined reading of section 2(14), 2(29A) and 2(42A) clarifies that holding period of the assessee starts from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Since allottee gets title of the property on the issuance of allotment letter and payment of first installment is only a consequential act…

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

…issuance of\nan allotment letter. The payment of balance amount and delivery of possession\nare consequential acts that relate back to and arise from the rights conferred by\nthe allotment letter upon the assessee.\n12. In the case of Vinod Kumar Jain vs CIT 344 ITR 501 it was held by Hon'ble\nPunjab & Haryana High Court that conjoined reading of section 2(14), 2(29A)\nand 2(42A) clarifies that holding period of the assessee starts from the date of\nissuance of allotment letter. Since allottee gets title of the property on the issuance\nof allotment letter and payment of first installment is only a consequential…

MOHAMMED FARHAN MOHAMMED YUNUS ATTARWALA,MUMBAI vs. WARD 20(2)(1), NFAC DELHI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…some right had been created in favour of the vendee/transferee, when the agreement to sell had been executed." 15.1. Similar issue had come up before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT in [2010] 195 Taxman 174/344 ITR 501 wherein assessee was allotted a flat on 27.02.1982 on instalments under residential scheme of Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The possession of the said flat was, however, given to the assessee on 15.05.1986 and the letter issued in that behalf indicated the flat number and called upon the assessee-allottee to deposit the balance amount. The a…

DILSHAD AHMED RANGREJ ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dilshad Ahmed Rangrej Cit, E2 Building No. 11, Sai Mahal Chs Ltd, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Sector 48, Seawood, Nerul, Navi Vs. Delhi Mumbai-400 706

…54 is not allowed. The assessee replied on 05/12/2016. He stated that the purchase agreement is registered on 23/12/2011 and allotment letter is dated 20/07/2009. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar Jain versus CIT-344 ITR 501 and CBDT Circular No. 471 dated 15/10/1986 the property sold by the assessee is a long term capital gain. The learned Assessing Officer found that the project of construction was commenced only on 12/12/2011; therefore, on 23/12/2011 the above property was not in existence. He also rejected the allotment letter issued by the builder. Accordingly,…

CHANDRASHEKHER RAMRAJ SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

…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…

JAYATI S. CHAKRABORTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjayati S Chakraborty Acit - 31(2) 1803/1804, B-Wing, Oberoi C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Woods, Mohan Gokhale Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400063. Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaopc5980B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Aarati Visanji With Sh. Salin R. Divatia-(Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr)

…efit of LTCG as well as indexed cost of consideration from 2008 itself. The ld. AR for the assessee also relied on the CBDT circular No. 672 dated 16th December 1993 and the decisions of Madhu Kaul v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 54 (P&H), Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT[2012] 344 ITR 501 (P&H), Anita D Kanjani v. ACIT 23(1), Mumbai (ITA No. 2291/Mum/2015), Sneha Bimal Parekh v Pr. CIT, Mumbai (ITA No. 5489/Mum/2015), ACIT v. Sanjay Kumath (ITA No. 448/Ind/2017) , Simi Khanna v. ACIT (ITA No. 2076/Mum/2017) & Nitin Prakash v. DCIT, Thane. ITA No. 7122 Mum 2016-Jayati S Chakraborty 9. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue…

VIJAY RANGROO,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mr. Vijay Rangroo ITO (IT) 4(1)(1), C/o 761, Building No. 7, Air India Building, Solitaire Corporate Park, Vs. Nariman Point, Andheri East, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400093. PAN: AFYPR2330H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Milind Bakhai (AR) Respondent by : Shri Rajiv Gubgutra (DR) Date of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253…

ACIT - 21(1), MUMBAI vs. ANOOP SAXENA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhacit Circ-21 Shri Anup Saxena Room No. 116, 1St Floor, 507, Shah & Nahar Indl Estate, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400018. Pan: Afops0804H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : R. Kavitha (Dr) Respondent By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Advocate) Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2018 Orderunder Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

…he case of CIT vs. Ramakrishnan, 48 taxmann.com 55(Den has held that the date of allotment is relevant for the purpose of computing holding period and not the date of conveyance deed. Similarly, the Hon'ble P&H High Court has held in Vinod Kumar Jain vs. CIT, 344 ITR 501 (P&H) that an allottee acquires a title of property on receiving allotment letter and payment of installment is only a consequential action upon which delivery of possession follows. Hence, in the light of the undisputed facts that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on 18.04.2011 from her share ITA No. 5101 Mum 2016-Shri Anup Sa…