Bombay in CIT v. Puja Prints

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner of Limited (Formerly known Income Tax, as Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier known as Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, LBS Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 PAN: AAACN4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly known Circle-8(2)(1)…

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner of Limited (Formerly known Income Tax, as Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier known as Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, LBS Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 PAN: AAACN4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly known Circle-8(2)(1)…

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PENINSULA LAND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…s report. The second aspect of the matter is that prior to 01/07/2012, no reference to DVO could be made u/s 55A where Ld. AO was of the view that FMV was less than value declared by the assessee as held by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Puja Prints (43 Taxmann.com 247; 15/01/2014). It was held as under: - 7. We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less then the fair market value. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the value ado…

PENINSULA LAND LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…s report. The second aspect of the matter is that prior to 01/07/2012, no reference to DVO could be made u/s 55A where Ld. AO was of the view that FMV was less than value declared by the assessee as held by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Puja Prints (43 Taxmann.com 247; 15/01/2014). It was held as under: - 7. We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less then the fair market value. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the value ado…

ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PENINSULA LAND LTD., MUMBAI

…s report. The second aspect of the matter is that prior to 01/07/2012, no reference to DVO could be made u/s 55A where Ld. AO was of the view that FMV was less than value declared by the assessee as held by Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Puja Prints (43 Taxmann.com 247; 15/01/2014). It was held as under: - 7. We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less then the fair market value. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the value ad…

DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PENINSULA LAND LTD, MUMBAI

…s report. The second aspect of the matter is that prior to 01/07/2012, no reference to DVO could be made u/s 55A where Ld. AO was of the view that FMV was less than value declared by the assessee as held by Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Puja Prints (43 Taxmann.com 247; 15/01/2014). It was held as under: - 7. We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less then the fair market value. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the value ad…

D.C.I.T. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PENINSULA LAND LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3440/Mum/2009 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S Peninsula Land Limited Dcit – 7(1), (Previously Known As Morarjee Realties Ltd.) 622, Aaykar Bhavan Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor बिाम M. K. Marg Mathuradas Mills Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 / Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5173-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3696/Mum/2009 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Dcit – 7(1), M/S Peninsula Land Limited 622, Aaykar Bhavan (Previously Known As Morarjee Realties Ltd.) Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor बिाम/ M. K. Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Mathuradas Mills Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5173-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri H. N. Singh – Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / : 05/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

…s report. The second aspect of the matter is that prior to 01/07/2012, no reference to DVO could be made u/s 55A where Ld. AO was of the view that FMV was less than value declared by the assessee as held by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT V/s Puja Prints (43 Taxmann.com 247; 15/01/2014). It was held as under: - 7. We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less then the fair market value. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the value ado…