“Section 2(24)(vi)”

Smt. Urmila Dhelia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Appellant on re-development would be in the nature of capital receipt and the same is not includible in income as per section 2(24)(vi); (ii) the Appellant received 6,20,500/- being 10% of the Corpus Money during the previous year as advance which was refundable if certain ... caused to her on redevelopment would be in the nature of capital receipt and the same is not includible in income as per section 2(24)(vi).The ld.CIT(A) however, rejected the contentions of the assessee stating that it was evident that she had engaged the builders to develop

Mohammed Fakhre Alam Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Mohammed Fakhre Alam The Assessing Officer, Shaikh, Ward-17(2)(3), New Usmaniya Washing, Vs. Mumbai. Noor Mansion, 111, Janjikar Street, Crawford Market, Mumbai-400003. Pan : Bhops3293R (Appellant) (Respondent)

income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes "any capital gains chargeable under section 45", and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot

Krishnakant Sharma (Lh of Late Vimaladevi Sharma), Mumabi vs. Income Tax Officer - 23(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes "any capital gains chargeable under section 45", and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot

Krishnakant Sharma (Lh of Late Vimaladevi Sharma), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 23(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes "any capital gains chargeable under section 45", and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot

Late Chitra Chakola, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Late Chitra Chakala Ito 24(1)(4) 102, Brighton Towers, 102, Brighton Towers, Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400053. Mumbai- 400053. Pan: Aabpc5032H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce Para

Mildred Ponnoth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (International Tax)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce para

Rajesh Ramesh Ranganekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce para

Nalni Sanjeev Nadkarni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce para

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jaymala Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

normal meaning disputed that income will not in its normal meaning include capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in Section 2(24) (vi) of capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in Section 2(24) (vi) of capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in Section ... gains under Section 45. It is for this reason tax as capital gains under Section 45. It is for this reason that under section 2(24)(vi) that the Legislature has that under section 2(24)(vi) that the Legislature has expressly stated, inter alia, that income shall include

Upinder Kaur Khalsa Rao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce para

Kunnama V Balakrishna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(2) 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, Mig Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepb0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee, Despite The Fact That The Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On Previous Five (5) Occasions. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.25,21,508/- Made By Ao By Treating The Hardship Compensation Fund As “Dividend Income” Received From The Residential Society.

income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes “any capital gains chargeable under section 45”, and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot