Jitendra Kumar Soneja v. ITO, Ward-6(3) (3)

ASHOK RAMCHANDRA NAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ashok Ramchandra Naik vs ITO, Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai B8, 58 MIG Colony, Gandhi Piramal Chambers, Mumbai- Nagar, Bandra, Mumbai- 400012 400051 PAN:AACPN1184A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Singh Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR) Date of hearing : 07/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 10/04/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”],…

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMABI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…of Rs.25,02,508/- cannot be said to be of revenue nature and accordingly the same is outside the ambit of income u/s 2(24) of the Act. However, in the case of Kushal K. Bangia (supra) as well as in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soneja v ITO, Ward-6(3) (3) (2016) 161 ITD 269 (Mum), the Tribunal has observed in similar case that the impugned receipt ends up reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset, i.e. flat, and therefore the same will be taken into account when occasion arises for computing capital gains in respect of said. Subject to these observation, the appeal of assessee is allowed. 5. Since the facts of t…

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…of Rs.25,02,508/- cannot be said to be of revenue nature and accordingly the same is outside the ambit of income u/s 2(24) of the Act. However, in the case of Kushal K. Bangia (supra) as well as in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soneja v ITO, Ward-6(3) (3) (2016) 161 ITD 269 (Mum), the Tribunal has observed in similar case that the impugned receipt ends up reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset, i.e. flat, and therefore the same will be taken into account when occasion arises for computing capital gains in respect of said. Subject to these observation, the appeal of assessee is allowed. 5. Since the facts of t…

NALNI SANJEEV NADKARNI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

…The Ld. AR has relied on the fallowing judicial decisions as under: 1.Vinod Murlidhar Chawla Vs. ITO Ward-23(3)(5) (ITA NO 3206/MUM/2022). 2 Ajay Parasmal Kothari Vs. ITO Ward-30(1) (1) (ITA NO 2823/MUM/2022). 3. Jitendra Kumar Soneja Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3) (3) (161 ITD 269). 4. Smt Delilah Raj Mansukhani Vs. ITO, Ward 35(1)(3) (ITA NO 3526/MUM/2017). 5.Kushal K Bangia Vs. ITO Ward 21(1)(2) (ITA NO 2439/MUM/2011). 6.Shri Lawrence Rebello Vs. ITO 1(3), Indore (ITA NO 132/IND/2020 7. We find the coordinate bench of this Honble Tribunal in the case of Vinod Muralidhar Chawla Vs. ITO in ITA No. 3206/Mum/2022 for A.Y.201…

KUNNAMA V BALAKRISHNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(2) 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, Mig Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepb0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee, Despite The Fact That The Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On Previous Five (5) Occasions. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.25,21,508/- Made By Ao By Treating The Hardship Compensation Fund As “Dividend Income” Received From The Residential Society.

…of Rs.25,02,508/- cannot be said to be of revenue nature and accordingly the same is outside the ambit of income u/s 2(24) of the Act. However, in the case of Kushal K. Bangia (supra) as well as in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soneja v ITO, Ward-6(3)(3) (2016) 161 ITD 269 (Mum), the Tribunal has observed in similar case that the impugned receipt ends up reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset, i.e. flat, 8 A.Y. 2011-12 Smt. Kunnama V. Balakrishna and, therefore, the same will be taken into account when occasion arises for computing capital gains in respect of the said asset. Subject to these observation, th…

RAMANAN SIVARAMAN ERANATH VENGALI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAX WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the addition of INR 97,32,625/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and Ground No. 2 to 4 are allowed in terms of the aforesaid

…Vs Income Tax Officer 21(1)(2), ITA 6 ITA No.808/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) No.2349/Mum/2011 reported in [2012] 145 TTJ 37 (Mumbai) (UO)[31-01-2012] - Jitendra Kumar Soneja vs Income Tax Officer, Ward6(3)(3), ITA No.291/Mum/2015 reported in [2016] 161 ITD 269 (Mumbai)[12- 08-2016] 6.2. However, the Assessing Officer declined to grant relief to the Appellant by following the above decision of the Tribunal observing as under: “4.7 In the present case, as per the redevelopment agreement, the assessee is entitled for a flat beside that the assessee received an amount of Rs.11,62,625/-from the developer/b…

PRADYOT B. BORKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.4070/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Pradyot B. Borkar 179–C, MIG Colony ……………. Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 PAN – AADPB2722R v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–19(3), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Subhash Ratnaparkhi Revenue by : Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing – 06.01.2020 Date of Order – 17.01.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging order dated 14th March…