“date of transfer”

Capital GainsSection 2(47)Section 2(47)965 judgments

The decision most relied on for date of transfer is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on date of transfer

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.

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

260 ITR 491 · 2003 · High Court

150

citing judgments

For capital gains purposes, a 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) occurs and capital gains arise in the year when possession of the property is handed over in part performance of a contract, such as a joint development agreement. This was the settled position before the specific provisions of section 45(5A) were introduced.

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT

365 ITR 389 · 2014 · Supreme Court

122

citing judgments

For claiming capital gains exemption under beneficial provisions like section 54, the 'date of transfer' can be the date of the agreement to sell, particularly when coupled with substantial advance consideration or an enforceable right, adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation to acknowledge the assessee's intent.

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana

340 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property by way of sale is legally valid only through a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance. Unregistered instruments like agreements to sell, General Power of Attorney, or wills do not transfer title or create an interest in the property.

CIT v. T.K. Dayalu

202 Taxmann 531 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

In a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), capital gains arise for chargeability to tax when the complete control over the property is passed to the developer, with the date of such transfer of control being relevant for determining the assessment year. This includes considerations of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

PCIT v. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd.

111 Taxmann.com 94 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

Prior to the incorporation of the proviso to section 43CA(1) with effect from 1st April 2019, section 43CA did not envisage any limit regarding the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration received by the assessee for the transfer of immovable property that was stock-in-trade.

CIT v. Ashaland Corporation

133 ITR 55 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

Income from the sale of immovable property, including any 'on-money' component, is taxable only when the sale is complete, marked by the execution and registration of the sale deed and/or transfer of possession to the buyer.

CIT v. R.L. Sood

245 ITR 727 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

Exemption under Section 54 for capital gains on a residential property is available even if the sale deed is not registered within the stipulated time, provided a substantial amount of consideration is paid, or the delay in completion/registration is beyond the assessee's control.

Judgments citing date of transfer

M/S. Anupam Ranjan (HUF), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 54Section 54F

with M/s. Ashiana Marketing & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. on 11.1.2007. It was the contention of the assessee’s counsel that on commencing from the date of transfer of the land to the developer and ending on the date when the assessee sold its share of flats constitute a single transaction. This ... Scheme U/S 139(1) Unutilized amount taxable as LTCG in the PY in 7 If Deposit not utilised which three years the date of transfer of original asset expires. The cost of the new assets shall be reduced by the amount of capital gains exempted earlier. Consequences of Therefore amount

Smt. P. Chitra, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 13 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 749/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 749/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

ground that, the assessee could not complete construction of house property within three years from the date of transfer of original asset. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), and contended that if he consider the date of allotment of property ... completion of construction. It is admitted fact that the assessee could not complete the construction of house within three years from the date of transfer of original asset. As per provisions of section 54F, in case the assessee could not invest sale consideration for acquiring new asset, balance should

M/S. Kwality Biscuits Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 675/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55(2)

incidence of transfer of asset on JDA, as to whether the transfer is on the date of JDA or on the date of transfer of developed property. But, in the instant case, there is no scope for two opinions as to whether the sale proceeds are to be considered

Bachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3, Thane

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

ITA 890/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 132Section 14ASection 250Section 28

Lacs & Rs.13.44 Lacs in FY 2011-12 could not be sustained since the payments made within a period of 36 months before the date of transfer of asset could not alter the nature of gains earned by the assessee and the same remain Long Term Capital Gain in nature only

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. R. Muniraju (HUF), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 54/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

without the plan sanction, the terms of JDA cannot be implemented and therefore the AO cannot consider the date of JDA as the date of transfer. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and stated that the application for plan approval was submitted by the developer ... merits, the assessee submitted before the CIT (Appeals) that the date of JDA cannot be considered as the date of transfer and that the assessee has offered the capital gains to tax as and when the flats were actually sold from AY 2013-14 to 2017-18. The assessee also

Dharmista Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

1885/Mum/2017-Dr. Dharmista Mehta years after (in case of purchase); or three years after (in case of construction) the date of transfer of the long-term capital asset. 9. Invariably, a person is not able to utilize the entire amount of capital gains on or before the due date of filing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Bioworth India Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by

Section 133(6)Section 37

consideration actually received but with reference to the consideration which should have been equal to the book value, of shares on the date of transfer. In AO's opinion irrespective of the consideration actually bargained by the parties, for the purposes of assessing capital gains the full value of consideration

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

section 153 of the Act expires. 14. Now the question arises as to how the period of 60 days prior to the date of transfer pricing order i.e. 01.11.2019 is to be computed. Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while dealing

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

M/S Pranjee Properties Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1438/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Pranjee Properties Pvt Ltd Vs Dcit 10(3)(2), Mumbai 3060, B-Wing, Oberoi Garden Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 Pan : Aadcp8950C Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 43C

time of transfer of assets should not be considered for the purpose. The assessee further stated that the date of agreement and the date of transfer are different. 4. The Ld.AR reiterated the same fact that the assessee’s case would be covered under sub section (3) of section 43CA

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-24(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavesh Surendra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.998/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ Bhavesh Surendra Shah Room No.601, Piramal 34/P, Laxmi Industrial Vs. Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Estate, New Link Road, Lane, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri-W, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps0265M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Dalpat Shah Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 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 (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 12.03.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Deduction U/S 54(1) Of Rs.2,29,33,659/- Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 54(1) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Provided The Assessee Invests In A New Capital Asset Within A Period Of One Year Before Or Two Years After The Date Transfer Of Old House, The Taxpayer Should Acquire Another Residential House Or Should Construct A Residential House Within A Period Of Three Years From The Date Of Transfer Of The Old House.

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 54Section 54(1)

house, the taxpayer should acquire another residential house or should construct a residential house within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the old house. 2 A.Y. 2018-19 Bhavesh Surendra Shah 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... flat as held by AO]; and since the possession of the same was given to assessee within the three (3) years from the date of transfer of old house property which was sold on 24.10.2017, the assessee was entitled to the exemption claimed

Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-26, Mumbai

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

ITA 3746/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Cit (A)-26 Mrs. Nirmala Subramanian R.No.331, 3Rd Floor, 406, Vardhaman Market Tower No.6 Sector 17, Vashi, Vashi Station Complex Vs. Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahzps4849K Assessee By : Shri Nm Porwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ujjawal Chavan, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri NM Porwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan, SR AR

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 54

invest, the capital gain arise on transfer of residential house within a period of 1 year before or two years after the date of transfer of the house property then the amount of capital gain invested in purchase of new house property, the capital gain was not chargeable

ITO-12(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Mystical Infratech Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4266/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shr Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4266/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer- M/S. Mystical Infaratech Pvt. Ltd., 12(3)(4),Room No.147A, 1St बिधम/ Ground Floor, D. B.House,, Floor ,Ayankar Bhavan, Vs. Gen A.K.Vaidya Marg, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 063. 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagcm1049J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Nimesh Yadav( Cit Dr) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. A.K.Ghosh , Pooja Ramder , Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 30.03.2017, Passed By Cit (Appeals)-20 Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Nimesh Yadav( CIT DR)For Respondent: Shri. A.K.Ghosh , Pooja

Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(viia)

/preference shares; secondly, the equity shares in SLS and DBPPL were acquired by the assessee company on 30th July 2010, therefore the valuation dated of transfer of equity shares is to be taken as on 30th July 2010; thirdly, the detail working of the valuation as per 11UA was also ... given; fourthly, it was stated that the valuation date cannot be taken as on 31st March 2010 but on the date of transfer/ allotment; and lastly, it was stated that the liabilities as appearing in the balance sheet as on 30th July 2010 should be reduced from the book value

M/S. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than

Shri Ganadhiraj Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A) -40, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5351/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 80P

transfer of development right to the builder, the Revenue is considering the date of registration of the agreement, i.e. 18/02/2010, as the date of transfer for the purpose of computation of capital gains tax. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we are of the considered view

Dow Agro Sciences India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-14 (1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal are disposed of as infructuous

ITA 1234/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sixty Days Prior To “The Timeline For The Assessment Order, It Is Implied That Such Order Must Precede 31 December By Not Less Than Sixty Days.”

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C

Sri. G.S. Shivanna(HUF), Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-4, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. G. S. Shivanna (Huf), Pcit, Vs. No.3, Basaveshwara Nilaya, Bengaluru – 4, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan : Aaahg 7097 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Satish S, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Satish S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

ground that the assessee owned more than one house property other than the new asset as on the date of transfer. 14. With regard to the order of PCIT directing the AO to examine the question whether the gain on sale of the plots by the assessee should be regarded

Dnyaneshwar Shankar Ghorpade, Badlapur vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 7985/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Shri Shankar Rama Ghorpade Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Shiv Parvati Bangalow Katrap Gaon, Kulgaon, Badlapur Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (East)-421 503 (W), 421 301 Pan : Aehpg5210M Appellant Respondent Dnyaneshwar Shankar Ghorpade Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, (L/H Of Late Shankar Rama Ghorpade), Shiv Parvati Bangalow Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Katrap Gaon, Kulgaon, Badlapur (W), 421 301 (East)-421 503 Pan : Aehpg5210M Appellant Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

ingredients of the provision manifest that the land which is transferred should have been used for agricultural purpose two years immediately preceding the date of transfer and that the acquisition by the government bodies should have been compulsory acquisition. In the present case in hand, the assessee has failed

Subhash Maruti Ghorpade, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6948/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Shankar Rama Ghorpade, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1168/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250