Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)
Ito 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs Harsha Jitendra Sanghavi, Mumbai on 9 August, 2017 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981

4.15 The case of ITAT read with decision of Bombay High Court squarely applies to the case of the appellant. As the additional FSI amounts to cost of improvement to the property "Padmavati Sadan", which was acquired by the appellant because of his rights in the old property and the said additional FSI would not otherwise be available to the appellant by spending money, the cost of improvement to the property by way of enhanced FSI cannot be ascertained. Hence, following the earlier mentioned two decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, ΒΆ am of the view that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Sreenivasa Setty (supra) would be applicable to the appellant's case. Therefore, there would be no LTCG chargeable on transfer of the property 'Padmavati Sadan' to the developer for redevelopment as the computation mechanism fails. amount of Rs.37,00,000/- received by the appellant from the developer is not liable to LTCG. Similarly, the amount of Rs.12,03,3331 - added by the AO to the total consideration for transfer on account of cost of new flat, office space and parking space is also not liable to LTCG on the same reasoning as this amount of Rs.12,03,333/- is part of the total consideration for transfer of appellant's right in the property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 859 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Ntpc Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-V on 16 April, 2014

"4.10 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, arguments of the AO and the written submissions of the AR of the appellant. Regarding additional grounds of appeal filed by the appellant on 19-4-2012. the AO, in his remand report, has not raised any objection to the admission of the said additional grounds of appeal. It is seen that the adjudication of the additional grounds of appeal does not require any enquiry into new facts, as all therelevant facts on the issue are already on record. In the case of NTPC Ltd. V/s CIT, 229 hR 353 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a legal ground can be raised at any stage of appeal. Both the additional grounds raised by the appellant are legal grounds, which can be adjudicated on the basis of the facts already on record. Hence, following the decision of NTPC Ltd. Vs CIT (Supra), both the additional grounds of appeal are admitted for adjudication.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 481 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Evans Fraser And Co. Ltd. (In ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 13 August, 1981

4.14 In the case of Evan Fraser & Co. Ltd Vs CIT, Bombay City-11 (137 hR 493), The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that the income chargeable to capital gains tax is to be computed by deduction from the full value of the consideration 'Cost of acquisition of the capital assets and cost of any improvement thereto". Since the cost of improvement of goodwill cannot be ascertained, gains arising on its transfer would not be liable to tax u/s 12B of I.T Act 1922. While arriving at the above decision, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court Loose sheet submissions marked has relied on the Page 10 of 17 MA Nos. 15& 34/Mum/2017 ITA Nos.6731&6732/Mum/2012 CO Nos.
Bombay High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 41 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mrs. Geetadevi Pasari on 9 June, 2006

In view of the above decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Geetadevi Pasari (supra), and the fact of the case that no transfer of property took place during the FY relevant to the AY 2008-09 and no possession was handed over to the developer and ultimately the agreement between the assessee and the developer, the assessee cannot be held to be liable for capital gain tax liability. Accordingly, both Page 16 of 17 MA Nos. 15& 34/Mum/2017 ITA Nos.6731&6732/Mum/2012 CO Nos. 288 & 289/Mum/2013 Mrs. Harsha Jitendra Sanghavi & Shri Jitendra Pranlal Sanghavi the Revenue's appeals are dismissed. Since we have dismissed the appeals of Revenue on merits, the COs of the assessee are also dismissed being academic.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1