Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT

344 ITR 501High Court2012#3834 most cited

What is Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT authority for?

The holding period of an asset, particularly a flat allotted by the DDA, commences from the date of the allotment letter, not the date of possession or subsequent sale deed registration.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vinod Kumar Jain v CIT · 344 ITR 501 · section 2(14) · section 2(42A) · section 2(29A) · holding period · allotment letter · date of transfer · capital gains · long term capital gain · DDA flats

Also reported as

195 Taxmann 174

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 2(14)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(42a)period of holdinglong-term capital assetsection 2(47)section 53indexed cost of acquisitionsection 2(14)date of transfersection 54cost of improvementsection 48short term capital gain

Judgments citing Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT

ITO - 21(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mridula Anoop Saxena, Mumbai

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

ITA 5102/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Ito – 21(2)(3), Smt. Mridula Anoop Saxena, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, 1602-B, Lokhandwala Residency, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Ncy Towers Chs Ltd., Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Manjrekar Lane, Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Pan: Aaqps0855F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The ITO – 21(2)(3), Smt. Mridula Anoop Saxena, Room No. 105, 1st Floor, 1602-B, Lokhandwala Residency, Piramal Chambers, Parel, NCY Towers CHS Ltd., Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Manjrekar Lane, Off. Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400018 PAN: AAQPS0855F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR) Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR) Date of Hearing: 25/05/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 14/08/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed…

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Shashi Bhushan Roy, Mumbai

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

ITA 3204/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

For Respondent: Shri RAM Tiwari (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(a)Section 234BSection 254(1)

…olding period. 18. In support of his submission the ld AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Tribunal in Anita D. Kanjani Versus ACIT [2017] 163 ITD 451 (Mumbai Tri), CIT Vs A Suresh Rao [2014] 223 Taxman 228 (Karn) and in Vinod Kumar Jain Vs CIT (344 ITR 501) (P&H). The learned AR of the assessee prayed for confirming the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 19. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the material placed before us. During the assessment the assessing officer noted that the assessee has sold immovable property for…

ITO, Ward 35(2), Kolkata vs. Smt. Nalini Bothra, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1405/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1405/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward-35(2), Kolkata -Vs- Smt. Nalini Bothra. [Pan: Adrpb 5103 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri A. Kochar
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

…sion of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt Madhu Kaul vs CIT, Chandigarh reported in (2014) 43 taxmann.com 417 (P&H High Court) c) Decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain vs CIT, Ludhiana reported in 344 ITR 501 (P&H ) 5.2. The ld CITA held that the assessee had held the right in the property for more than three years and later transferred the same for a consideration and hence the gain arising on transfer of such long term capital asset should be construed only as long term capital gain. Consequently he directed the ld AO to grant exemption u/s 54 of t…

M/S. Jai Laxmi Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal are partly allowed

ITA 5578/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Jai Laxmi Developers (P) Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Central Circle-21, 78-B, Sector-2, Dda Flats, New Delhi Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Iii, Delhi-96 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 263Section 50C

…on 17.09.2002 and sold on 20.12.2005 the asset was held for more than 36 months and hence, same is a long term capital asset. He relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT 363 ITR 0054, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT 344 ITR 501 High Court of Punjab and Haryana decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjeev Lal Vs. CIT dated 01.07.2014. He further relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Sanjay Kumath 63 SOT 90 and Jitender Mohan Vs. ITO 11 SOT 594. He therefore, stated that the gain on sale of property is a long term capital gai…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Michelle N. Sanghvi, Mumbai

ITA 3973/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumaracit, Circle - 21(2) Shri Michelle N. Sanghvi Room No. 115, 1St Floor 402, Kewal Indl. Estate Piramal Chambers Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Parel, Mumbai 400012 Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 Pan – Arsps1466M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi NingeshenFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Sagar
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

…lowed exemption u/s 54. 4. CIT v K. Ramakrishnan, 48 taxmann.com 55 (Del.) The Hon'ble High Court has held that it was date of allotment which was relevant for purpose of computing holding period and not the date of conveyance deed. 5. Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT 344 ITR 501 (P & H) The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the assessee acquired rights under the letter of allotment which were to be treated as capital asset u/s. 2(14) of the Act by relying on the circular no. 471 dt. 15.10.1996 issued by the CBDT. The Court held that the right of the assessee prior to 15…

ITO 22(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Liladhar R. Tandel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas Cross

ITA 959/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicil Member

For Appellant: Shri. Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…pronouncements. 1. Madhu Kaul v. CIT (2014) 363 ITR 54 (P&H HC) 2. CIT v. K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59 (Del HC) 3. CIT v. S R Jeyashankar (2015) 373 ITR120 9Mad HC) 4. CIT v. A Suresh Rao (2014) 223 Taxmann 228 (Kar HC) 5. Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT (2012) 344 ITR 501 (P&H_HC) 6. CIT v. Jitendra Mohan (2007) 165 Taxman 524 (Del HC) 7. CIT v. Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR52 (Guj HC) 8. CIT v. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj) 18 Liladhar R. Tandel ITA No.959/Mum./2014 C.O No.153/Mum/2017 9. Lahar Singh Siroya v. ACIT (2016) 138 DTR 331 (Kar-HC) 10. Vijay Harnilapurkar v. DCIT ITA No.6048/M/2013 1…

ACIT, Cir-22, Kolkata vs. Mrs Sheela Chopra, Kolkata

ITA 169/KOL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Acit, Circle-22, 169 V/S. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8Th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block Dc, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [Pan No.Abwpc 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Aby.T Varkey, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2006-07 ACIT, Circle-22, 169 V/s. Mrs. Sheela Chopra, A.J.C. Bose Road, 8th R-604, The Residency, Floor, Kolkata-14 City Centre, Block DC, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [PAN No.ABWPC 6131 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri R.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate & ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Nira Seth, ACA सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 31-01-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of…

Sneha Bimal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5489/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263

…tent as the date of ownership as per the provisions of Act and in support of this the ld.AR relied on the following case laws: a) Smt.Lata G Rohra V/s DCIT – (2008) 21 SOT 541 (Mum); b) Ms.Madhu Kaul V/s CIT –(2014) 263 ITR 54 (P&H); Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT -344 ITR 501 (P&H); c) d) CIT V/s Ved Parkash And Sons (Huf) (1994) 207 ITR 148 P H, ; e) ACIT V/s Sanjay Kumath (2014) 63 SOT 90 (Indore) f) Charanbir Singh Jolly V/s ITO (2006) 5 SOT 89 (MUM) g) CIT V/s K Ramakrishnan (2014) 363 ITR 59(Del) 7 5489/Mum/2015 7. The lf. AR finally prayed that since the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudici…

ITO 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-7(2)(1), Shri Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Room No.621A, 6Th Floor, 1103, Raheja Acropolis, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Atlantic Deonar Chembur, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400088 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabpg9848F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Jignes Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr

Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-7(2)(1), Shri Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Room No.621A, 6th Floor, 1103, Raheja Acropolis, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Atlantic Deonar Chembur, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400088 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AABPG9848F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Jignes Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri B.S. Bist-D…

Utsav Jain, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, WD29(4), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1514/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10 Utsav Jain V/S. Ito, Ward-29(4), 90C Alipur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, 2, Kolkata-700 027 Gariahat Road, [Pan No.Agrpj 4300 R] Kolkataa-700 068 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Year :2009-10 Utsav Jain V/s. ITO, Ward-29(4), 90C Alipur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, 2, Kolkata-700 027 Gariahat Road, [PAN No.AGRPJ 4300 R] Kolkataa-700 068 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Prasun Kr. Bhattacharya, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Niloy Barun Som, JCIT, DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-05-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 08-06-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant…

S. Shankaranarayan, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 490/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri S.Shankaranarayan, No.708, 6Th B Cross, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034. … Appellant Pan: Aasps7994R Vs Income-Tax Officer (Tds) Ward 16(2), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

…o do with the holding of the asset by the assessee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. A. Suresh Rao (ITA No.417 2013)(Kar), ii) A.Suresh Rao vs. ITO (ITA No.761/Bang/2011)(Trib) iii) Vinod Kumar Jain vs. CIT (344 ITR 501)(Punjab & Haryana) iv) CIT vs. K.Ramakrishnan (363 ITR 59)(Delhi) Thus, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that when the assessee has acquired the property in auction and the allotment letter was issued by the BDA in favour of the assessee, then the said Shri S.Shankaranarayan Page 5 of 10 property was held by the assessee on the date…