Laxmi Kashinath Thanekar v/s Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Laxmi Kashinath Thanekar, filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 4,10,584/-. Based on information regarding the sale of immovable property, a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, determining the total income at Rs. 78,23,540/-. The assessee did not comply with various notices issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who eventually decided the appeal based on the facts and circumstances of the case and upheld the additions. The appeal was delayed by 63 days due to the assessee's serious medical issues, for which an application for condonation of delay was filed.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Erroneous consideration of long-term capital gain on sale of immovable property.
• 2. Erroneous consideration of income from other sources on compensation received for land acquisition.
• 3. Ignoring the valuation report submitted by a Chartered Engineer Registered Valuer.
• 4. Wrong application of section 50C of the Act.
• 5. Failure to establish the nexus between Shreenath Builders and Buildcube Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
• 6. Erroneous charging of interest under section 234B.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Material Research Instruments Vs. ACIT-Circle 16(2), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2006-07Partly Allowed

• Mrs. Geeta Narendra Gandhi Vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2019-20Partly Allowed

• Amit Sabharwal Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Mukesh Vaikunthlal Mehta vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2011-2012Partly Allowed

• Nitin Garg Vs Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• Seeta Ram Singh vs ITO

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12Allowed