CIT v. Devdas Naik

Gangaram Vallabhji Soni, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2020-21

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Gangaram Vallabhji Soni DCIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai Adarsh Nagar, Prabhadevi S.O. Vs. Mumbai, Maharshtra-400025. PAN: AKHPS 9016 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13.11.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-21 is d…

Shri Arun Kumar Sohan Lal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) I.T.A. No. 4526/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Arun Kumar Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. DCIT Circle 101, Guruprabha CHS 16(2) Opp. Pramod Mahajan Park, Mumbai. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400 028. PAN : AADPG1319D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.L. Jain & Shri Satish Jain Department by Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date of Hearing 03.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 11.11.2024 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The appellant took two grounds of appeal before the ITAT as follows :-…

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Nakul Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

…1 ITA No.2833 /Mum/2024 ITA No.2551 /Mum/2024 Nakul Aggarwal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT.RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2551/Mum/2024 (Assessment year 2017-18) Nakul Aggarwal vs Assistant Commissioner of 1401, D N Nagar, Terra Wing Income Tax, Circle-24(1), C Mumbai Rustomjee Elements 601, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 053 012 PAN : AIYPA3923A APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. No.2833/Mum/2024 (Assessment year 2017-18) ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), Mumbai vs Nakul Aggarwal 601, Piramal Chambers…

Nakul Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-24(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

…1 ITA No.2833 /Mum/2024 ITA No.2551 /Mum/2024 Nakul Aggarwal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT.RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.2551/Mum/2024 (Assessment year 2017-18) Nakul Aggarwal vs Assistant Commissioner of 1401, D N Nagar, Terra Wing Income Tax, Circle-24(1), C Mumbai Rustomjee Elements 601, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 053 012 PAN : AIYPA3923A APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. No.2833/Mum/2024 (Assessment year 2017-18) ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), Mumbai vs Nakul Aggarwal 601, Piramal Chambers…

Shri Bipin S. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2727/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2014-15 ) Shri Bipin S. Sanghvi, 203 To 205, Business Classic, Chincholi Bunder Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400 064 Pan: Aajps-1042-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito-13(3)-2, Mumbai Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Reepal Tralshwala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [ In Short ‘The Cit(A) ] Dated 31/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri Reepal Tralshwala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Two Grounds. The First Ground

…eligible for deduction u/s. 54F for investments in both the flats. To support his submissions the ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Devdas Naik reported as 366 ITR 12. 3. Per contra, Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Deed of Conveyance vide which the land 4 was sold was executed in the year 2013, whereas, the Deed of Clarification was made in 2018 i.e. almost five years after execution of Dee…

Madhu B Khatri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s claim of deduction is allowed

Bench: Confirming The Sale Consideration Determined By Ld. Ao On Adopting The Market Value Of 2 Residential Flats, Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 6613/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. ITO,Ward-32(2)(2) Madhu B.Khatri A-301, Bathia Building C-11, R.No.304, 3rd Floor No.1, S.V.Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan Borivali(W) BKC, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400092 Mumbai-400 051 PAN : AITPK8826F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Department by Ms. Usha Gaikwad Date of Hearing 18.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 01.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-…

Sapna Mukesh Thapar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…1 Sapna Mukesh Thappar Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी संद"प गोसांई, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7062/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) िनधा"रणवष" Sapna Mukesh Thapar Income Tax Officer-31(3)(3) A-103, 1st Floor, Shiv Shivam TWR Room No.408, 4th Floor बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Oshiwara Adarsh CHS Ltd., C-13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan Vs. Adarsh Nagar, New Lin…

Mr.Hemant Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO - 32(1)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2949/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) In The Matter Of:

…be given if two adjacent flats are joined to one, but have common entrance and kitchen. 9. Ld. CIT(A) in his order has also mentioned that the facts of the assessee’s case is very similar to the facts of the case mentioned in the case of CIT vrs. Devdas Nayak 366 ITR 12, wherein it was inter alia held that section 54 of the Act- Assessee claimed deduction u/s 54 on purchase of two flats – Though these flats were acquired under different agreements, but map of general lay out plan and internal layout plan indicated that there was only one common kitchen for both flats and both flats were used as a single unit. Thu…

Munisha D. Ahuja, Kolkatta vs. Asst CIT Cir 17(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…'ble Tribunal, interpretation of the word "a" preceding the expression "residential house" has been given wherein it has been observed that "a residential house" should not be understood to indicate a singular number. In the cited case of CIT vs. Devdas Naik [366 ITR 12], Hon’ble 5 Smt. Munisha D. Ahuja Assessment Year :2012-13 Bombay High Court observed that deduction u/s 54 would be available if the flats were used a single unit and used as one house for purpose of residence even if acquisition of flats were done independently. 4.4 From the above factual matrix coupled with binding judicial precedents, it is c…

ITO WD 22(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kanchan Kamlesh Bhatija, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Ravish Soodincome Tax Officer Wd-22(2)(1) Ms. Kanchan Kamlesh Bhatija Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 75/M, Flat No. 202, Piramal Chambers, Darya Darsh Bldg.,2Nd Floor, Vs. Lalbaug Parel, V.P Rd., Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 054

…claim for exemption under section 54 in respect of total investment made towards acquisition of the said flats cannot be denied, stands settled as on date by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-21, Mumbai vs. Devdas Naik (2014) 366 ITR 12 (Bom). We find that the Hon’ble High Court in the aforesaid judgment had concluded that that where acquisition of two flats had been done independently by the assessee, but however, the said flats were constructed in such a way that the adjacent units or flats could be combined into one, and eventually had been merged into a single unit and were u…

Pramod Sharma, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stood dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

…2011) 196 Taxman 87(Kar. HC). 3 (b) Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr.(Smt.) P K Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT (2012) 23 taxmann.com 299(Mad. HC). The learned CIT(A) relied upon decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Devdas Naik ,366 ITR 12 wherein decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Sushila Jhaveri in ITA no. 2865/Mum/2002 ( reported in (2007) 107 ITD 327(Mum-SB) ) stood approved by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court by holding that the benefit can be claimed only for one house but however if the assessee has adjoining units used as one , the claim can be allow…

Aftab A L Furniturewala, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shrin.K. Pradhanshri Aftab A L Furniturewala Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1) 601, Charisman Apartments Piramal Chambers 48, Gurunanak Road Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai 23Rd Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 Pan –Aabpf9617P Appellant Respondent

…ed in section 54 of the Act, as it existed during the relevant period does not mean one residential house. In support of such proposition he relied upon the following decisions: - i) CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Del.) ii) CIT vs. DevedasNaik (2014) 366 ITR 12(Bom.) iii) CIT vs. D. Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 (Kar.) iv) CIT vs. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Kar.) As regards the issue relating to claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act in respect of garages, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the condition imposed by the House Society the assessee could have pu…

ITO (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Kavita Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito (It)-3(1), Room No.114, Vs. Ms. Kavita Gupta, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Flat No. 1901-A, Sahyadri, Ballard Pier, N.M. Road, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad Mumbai – 38 (East), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan No. Anrpg 0004 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…appeal, the ld. Authorised Representative (for short, 'A.R') for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-21, Mumbai vs. Devdas Naik (2014) 366 ITR 12 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held that where acquisition of two flats had been done independently, but however, the said flats were constructed in such a way that the adjacent units or flats could be combined into one, and eventually were merged into a single unit and were used for the purpose of residence by the assessee, the claim o…

Shalini Kulshreshtha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 30(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shalini Kulshrestha, Income Tax Officer, D51 & 52, Ward 30(3)(3), Dhiraj Apartment, Poddar C-13, Bkc, Bandra, Vs. Road, Mumbai Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 Pan: Advpk6996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil R. Bhandari, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2018 O R D E R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shalini Kulshrestha, Income Tax Officer, D51 & 52, Ward 30(3)(3), Dhiraj Apartment, Poddar C-13, BKC, Bandra, Vs. Road, Mumbai Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 PAN: ADVPK6996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Sunil R. Bhandari, A.R. Revenue by : Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date of Hearing : 14.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2018 O R D E R Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 2…