Vithalbhai P. Patel 236 ITR 1001 (Guj) and Anant Chunilal Kate v. ITO

267 ITR 482High Court2004#20220 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Vithalbhai P. Patel 236 ITR 1001 (Guj) and Anant Chunilal Kate v. ITO

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…well established law that when a transfer of property becomes null and void for reasons of subsequent events, no capital gains can accrue thereon. In support, reliance was placed on Vithalbhai P. Patel 236 ITR 1001 (Guj) and Anant Chunilal Kate v. ITO [2004] 267 ITR 482 (Bom) followed by Narang Overseas (P.) Ltd 111 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (SB). Accordingly, he submitted when no capital gain accrues, then no tax is payable thereon. 47. The Ld. AR further submitted that it is the duty and power of this Court to take into consideration all the subsequent events in the interest of justice and placed reliance on undernoted…

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…well established law that when a transfer of property becomes null and void for reasons of subsequent events, no capital gains can accrue thereon. In support, reliance was placed on Vithalbhai P. Patel 236 ITR 1001 (Guj) and Anant Chunilal Kate v. ITO [2004] 267 ITR 482 (Bom) followed by Narang Overseas (P.) Ltd 111 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (SB). Accordingly, he submitted when no capital gain accrues, then no tax is payable thereon. 47. The Ld. AR further submitted that it is the duty and power of this Court to take into consideration all the subsequent events in the interest of justice and placed reliance on undernoted…

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…well established law that when a transfer of property becomes null and void for reasons of subsequent events, no capital gains can accrue thereon. In support, reliance was placed on Vithalbhai P. Patel 236 ITR 1001 (Guj) and Anant Chunilal Kate v. ITO [2004] 267 ITR 482 (Bom) followed by Narang Overseas (P.) Ltd 111 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (SB). Accordingly, he submitted when no capital gain accrues, then no tax is payable thereon. 47. The Ld. AR further submitted that it is the duty and power of this Court to take into consideration all the subsequent events in the interest of justice and placed reliance on undernoted…

Seth Properties, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2991/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…s related to the wrongful or unlawful possession of the property by NIHPL from 1st April, 1992 till handing over the property to the assessee. Therefore, the same has to be treated as mesne profits.—Anant Chunilal Kate vs. ITO (2004) 187 CTR (Bom) 93 : (2004) 267 ITR 482 (Bom) and Kumar Sudhenden Naran Deb vs. Mrs. Renuka Biswas (1992) 1 SCC 206 followed. (Paras 35 to 37) There is cleavage of opinion between High Courts. The Madras High Court has held that mesne profit is recompense for deprivation of income which the owner would have enjoyed but for the interference of the persons in wrongful possession of the…

Vithalbhai P. Patel 236 ITR 1001 (Guj) and Anant Chunilal Kate v. ITO (267 ITR 482) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax