In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 13, Mumbai v. Shri Chandrakant B. Shah, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In this view of the matter, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4122 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 13, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Shri Chandrakant B. Shah
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Ms.Aasifa Khan for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 30[th] August, 2011.
1.Following re-framed question of law is raised by the Revenue in
this appeal.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that while computing the capital gain payment made to the Developer towards the construction cost of the premises to the 13 tenants were liable to be excluded from the total consideration received by the assessee ?”
2.Counsel for the parties state that similar appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of a co-owner being Income Tax Appeal No.6034 of 2010 (CIT V/s. Milan D. Shah) has been dismissed by this Court on 4[th] August 2011. In this view of the matter, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, J.)
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.
EaseValue