Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1267/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itxa/1267/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax -23 v. Nimbkar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd

High Court 12 Mar 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1267/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax -23 v. Nimbkar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd
Date of order
12 Mar 2018
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/1267/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax -23 v. Nimbkar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Rane * 1/3 * ITXA-1267-2015 (SR.20)Monday, 12.3.2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1267 OF 2015 Commissioner of Income-Tax-23 ….AppellantV/s.Nimbkar Cooperative HousingSociety Ltd.….Respondent ….Respondent * * * * * Mr. Arvind Pinto, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM :- M.S. SANKLECHA, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. DATE :-12TH MARCH, 2018. P.C. :-1. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 11th September, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 11th September, 2013 is in respect of Assessment Year 2006-07. Rane * 2/3 * ITXA-1267-2015 (SR.20) 2The Revenue urges the only following re-framed question of law, for our consideration: “(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that any income made on the sale of additional TDR is not taxable under the head “Capital Gains” ?” 3.Mr. Pinto, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, very fairly states that, the issue arising therein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-Assessee by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Kailash Jyoti No.2 CHS Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 1607 of 2013 & Ors. renderred on 24th April, 2015). In the above case, an identical issue raised by the Revenue was dismissed on the ground that as there is no cost on acquisition the sale of TDR i.e. additional FSI would not give rise to the same being charged to tax under the head “Capital Gains”. 4. Therefore, in view of the reasons indicated in our order passed in Kailash Jyoti No.2 CHS Ltd. (supra), the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial Rane Monday, 12.3.2018 question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan