BIPIN DHARAMSHI SAVLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -22(1)(1), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2018-19
Per O. P. Kant (A.M.)
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 21st August, 2025 passed by the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/National Faceless
Appeal Center, Delhi [in short Ld. CIT (A)] for Assessment
Year 2018-19, raising following grounds:-
2
Mr. Bipin Dharamshi Savla
“GROUND I
On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the Commissioner of Income Tax "CITA" has erred in confirming the addition u/s 50C of the Act of Rs. 6,34,500/- without appreciating fact that the registration is made on the rates agreed in 2011. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CITA failed to appreciate that a. The Flat sale was tripartite agreement where the builder was also involved. b. As per the development agreement entered into in 2011, the value of the property was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- PSF c. Therefore, making a deal not exceeding Rs. 20,000/- psf was mandatory. d. The extra valuation by stamp authorities was due to the calculation of parking area which was given free with the flat. e The addition made is bad at law. 3 Mr. Bipin Dharamshi Savla
The Appellant therefore prays that the addition u/s 50C of the Act of Rs.6,34,500/-may please be deleted. GROUND II 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in Law, the CITA has erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim U/s 54 Rs. 43,35,600/- ignoring the fact that the whole investment is made as per rules. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CITA failed to appreciate that:- a. The investment was made as per the provisions of Section 54 before filing of the return. b. The Flat registration is not made since the project did not proceed further. c. The Assesse has done all the acts by investing money with a clear understanding that the building shall be completed within 3 years. d. The project delay is not in the control of the Assesse. e. The deduction should not be denied for circumstances beyond the control of the Assesse. 4 Mr. Bipin Dharamshi Savla
The Appellant therefore prays that the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act of Rs.43,35,600/- may please be allowed.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 10th August, 2018 declaring total income of Rs.11,16,601/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Sub-