Vinod v. Chhapia v. ITO

56 SOT 465Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#25413 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Vinod v. Chhapia v. ITO

ACIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…g a detailed discussion in the matter by the Revenue for AY 2013-14. The precedents 8.2 A perusal of the record, however, reveals a decision by the Tribunal (Mumbai Benches) in the case of Vinod V. Chhapia vs. ITO (in ITA No. 3178/Mum/2010, reported at [2013] 56 SOT 465 (Mum)), relied upon by the Revenue before the Tribunal during the hearing of it’s appeals for AYs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 (save AY 2009-10)(PB pgs. 66-72). The same, however, was not considered by the Tribunal, nor was it brought to our notice by either side during hearing; clearly, a misrepresentation. It therefore becomes incumbent on us to examine…

ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI vs. NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee and that of the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5622/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 54E

…by observing in Para 3.2 and 3.3 as under. Similar are the findings in other assessment years by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us, Revenue filed copy of Tribunal’s order in the case of Vinod V. Chhapia v. ITO (2013) [56 SOT 465 (Mumbai)], wherein, Tribunal considered the receipt in case of surrender of tenancy rights as windfall received by assessee and the same was rightly taxed as income from other sources. The Tribunal observed that it is the original tenant who received consideration from the land lord in response to the surrender of tenancy rights, but in the presen…

THE NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of assessee and that of the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5234/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 54E

…by observing in Para 3.2 and 3.3 as under. Similar are the findings in other assessment years by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us, Revenue filed copy of Tribunal’s order in the case of Vinod V. Chhapia v. ITO (2013) [56 SOT 465 (Mumbai)], wherein, Tribunal considered the receipt in case of surrender of tenancy rights as windfall received by assessee and the same was rightly taxed as income from other sources. The Tribunal observed that it is the original tenant who received consideration from the land lord in response to the surrender of tenancy rights, but in the presen…

Vinod v. Chhapia v. ITO (56 SOT 465) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax