← All Phrases

“Section 45(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 45Section 45(2)75 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 45(2) is CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294), cited in 628 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 45(2)

CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty
128 ITR 294 · 1981 · Supreme Court
628
citing judgments

When the cost of acquisition of a capital asset cannot be determined, the computation mechanism for capital gains fails, and thus no capital gains can be charged. This establishes a broader principle that a charging section cannot operate in the absence of specific machinery provisions for computation.

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)
315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
363
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

Rama Bai v. CIT
181 ITR 400 · 1990 · Supreme Court
258
citing judgments

Interest income is taxable on either an accrual or cash basis, determined by accounting principles. This method was applicable prior to legislative changes that simplified the taxation of interest income.

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini
398 ITR 531 · 2017 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

CIT v. Govindbhai Mamaiya
91 Taxmann.com 20 · 2018 · Supreme Court
205
citing judgments

Interest on enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the compensation, not merely interest income, and is exigible to tax on a receipt basis.

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills
296 ITR 238 · 2008 · High Court
180
citing judgments

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

Mahender Pal Narang v. CBDT
161 Taxmann.com 301 · 2024 · High Court
178
citing judgments

Interest received as enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for compulsory acquisition of land is taxable as "income from other sources" under Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and is not exempt under Section 10(37).

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.
331 ITR 192 · 2011 · High Court
152
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has taken one of two possible views on a debatable issue during assessment proceedings.

Judgments citing Section 45(2)

Mustafa Katthawala, Kota vs. DCIT ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1156/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 45(3)

assessee further states that he has converted his capital asset into stock in trade as per provisions of section 45(2) of the Act. 3.1 Ld. AO noted that the reply was perused and analyzed. On analysis, he observed that the assessee's reply revolves around mainly 2 points which ... trade on 20.11.2013 which pertains to A.Y.2014-15, (ii) He has converted his capital asset into stock in trade as per provisions of section 45(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. About point mentioned at (i) the assessee, in support of his argument furnished the Development Agreement entered into with

DCIT Central Circle- 3(4), Mumbai, Air India Building vs. Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3139/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 391

land was converted from capital asset to stock in trade and so in any case was liable for capital gains tax as per section 45(2) of the Act. The assessee, both at the time of the assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings, has submitted that capital gains ... would also be liable to pay a higher capital gains tax on a higher FMV as per the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act. The provisions of the law are clear that the issue of taxability of such land acquired as a result of a scheme of amalgamation

Devidayal Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 4610/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 221(1)

they are converted into stock in trade within the meaning of section 45(1) of the Act and can only be assessed under section 45(2) of the Act in the year of sale. Without prejudice to the contention that section 45(1) has no applicability to the facts ... required to be shown at the market value as the date of conversion in the books of accounts and the provisions of section 45(2) clearly mentions that the Fair market value should be adopted on the date of conversion of the capital asset into stock in trade for calculation

Devidayal Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 4609/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(47)Section 221(1)

they are converted into stock in trade within the meaning of section 45(1) of the Act and can only be assessed under section 45(2) of the Act in the year of sale. Without prejudice to the contention that section 45(1) has no applicability to the facts ... required to be shown at the market value as the date of conversion in the books of accounts and the provisions of section 45(2) clearly mentions that the Fair market value should be adopted on the date of conversion of the capital asset into stock in trade for calculation

Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 23/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 234A

trade and final profit arising on subsequent sale will have to be bifurcated into capital gain and business income as provided in section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is respectfully submitted that no business activities were required to be carried on in respect of assets sold

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Godavari Developers, Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stand dismissed in the above terms

ITA 1452/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1452/Hyd/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2008-09) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Godavari Developers, Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aaffg5872K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.27/Hyd/2017 (In Ita No.1452/Hyd/2016) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 30/09/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 2(47)

27/Hyd/2017 Officer is erred in applying a method which is applicable in the cases of capital assets. b) Referring to the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has categorically held that in a case where stock in trade is sold or transferred otherwise then

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Man Prakash Talkies Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed,

ITA 407/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) &
Section 147

407/JP/2018 & CO Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 DCIT vs. M/s Man Prakash Talikies Pvt. Ltd. construction of multistoried commercial complex, therefore, the provisions of Section 45(2) of the I.T. Act are applicable and the income ought to be taxed as Business Income and not a Capital Gains? & Vide letter dated ... trade by converting the land use and entered into a Development Agreement for construction of multistoried commercial complex, therefore, the provisions of Section 45(2) of the IT Act are applicable and the income ought to be taxed as Business Income and not a Capital Gains?” The brief fact

Deputy Commisisoner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S. Man Praksh Talkies Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed,

ITA 406/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) &
Section 147

407/JP/2018 & CO Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 DCIT vs. M/s Man Prakash Talikies Pvt. Ltd. construction of multistoried commercial complex, therefore, the provisions of Section 45(2) of the I.T. Act are applicable and the income ought to be taxed as Business Income and not a Capital Gains? & Vide letter dated ... trade by converting the land use and entered into a Development Agreement for construction of multistoried commercial complex, therefore, the provisions of Section 45(2) of the IT Act are applicable and the income ought to be taxed as Business Income and not a Capital Gains?” The brief fact

Ishoo Narang, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.319/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.2/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.319/Hyd/2022) A.Y 2015-16 Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)
Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

because of this, opening stock has been increased. The assessee further contended that as per the provisions of section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 when capital asset is converted into stock-in-trade, the resultant capital gain is taxable in the year in which the asset is sold ... offered to tax. 4. The Assessing Officer, after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of provisions of section 45(2) of the Act observed that, as per section 45(2), profits and gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner

Sannidhi Sri Ramachandra Murthy (HUF), Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

conversion of the capital asset into stock-in-trade was realised during the assessment year 2013-14. As per the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act, it becomes taxable in the year of realisation of the stock-in-trade. Assessee also further submitted that, he relied ... business income and has filed return of income accordingly. However, the Ld.Pr.CIT has disputed the date of transfer, without considering the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act, Ld.AR contended. Ld.AR further pleaded that since the allowability of deductions with respect to capital gains arise in the period

Nalapad Properties, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 1297/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sri H. Guruswamy, ITP &For Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R
Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250Section 45

with M/s. Brigade Enterprises for development of above property. The capital gain accrued on the said JDA subject to provisions of section 45(2) of the Act and it should be taxed in the assessment year 2009-10 and not in the assessment year 2017-18. In the present case ... capital gain” as well as “business income” as there was a conversion of capital asset into stock in trade and the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act is applicable. Thus, the provisions of section 45(5A) of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case. 7.2 Further

Shreeyans Kumar Godha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 43CSection 45(2)Section 49(1)Section 50C

trade by the assessee presuming it as a sham and colourable device to defraud the revenue by (i) overlooking the statutory provisions of section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (ii) not rebutting the judicial decisions having similar facts, relied upon by the assessee (iii) overlooking the fact ... question of Conversion of Land as Stock in Trade, the Id. AO noted as under : (1) As per Provisions of Section 45(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee should have carry business in which he converted his assets into stock in trade. Neither in the previous year

Nithin Pandurang Dhond, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 48

capital gains against the business loss. 9. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Section 45(2) of the Act are not applicable in the facts and the circumstances of the case.” 3. The brief facts are that assessee ... sold on 19/01/2016 by registered sale agreement for a total consideration of Rs.7,61,53,000/-. The ld. AO held that as per Section 45(2) of the Act, the gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capital asset into stock-in-trade

Green Orchand Farm Houses, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Saravanan B., D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 43C

about joint development agreement with developer and conversion of land by it as investment into stock-in-trade, Assessment Officer did not invoke Section 45(2) to tax consideration as capital gains, subsequent reopening for imposing capital gains was not proper.” 3.10 Further she submitted that para

Mr. Jaganath Ramachandra Jamadar, Bidar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bidar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1067/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Jinita ChatterjeeFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 45(2)Section 80C

accepting the Return of Income furnished by me is clearly against the principles of natural justice. Erroneous computation of Capital gains under section 45(2) of the Act 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO in determining the capital gains ... under section 45(2) of the Act, has grossly erred in calculating the fair market value of a capital asset (being 2 acres of land converted in to plots of 46,500 sft) by applying an arbitrary fair market value per square feet of land, instead of the stamp duty

DCIT -26(1), Mumbai vs. Shreyas Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule (CIT,DR)
Section 2(47)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 401/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

this issue and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine and compute the property under section 45(2) of the Act keeping in view of the above observation and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 400/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

this issue and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine and compute the property under section 45(2) of the Act keeping in view of the above observation and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 399/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

this issue and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine and compute the property under section 45(2) of the Act keeping in view of the above observation and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard

M/S Dharani Developers Private Limited, Alwarpet, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Circle 1(4), Nungambakkam Chennai

ITA 398/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397, 398, 399, 400 & 401/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Dharani Developers Private Vs. The Asst/Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, No. 1, Venus Colony Ii Street, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan:Aabcd6222D] Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 31.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Property Development & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Years Under Appeal. The First Ground Raised By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

this issue and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine and compute the property under section 45(2) of the Act keeping in view of the above observation and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard