Leena J. Shah v. ACIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SONYA ISHWAR JETHMAL, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

…wo years as per the scheme of the Act. The assessee has not deposited the capital gain in the specified account before the due date of filing the return. The AO also referred to the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Leena J. Shah vs. ACIT (2006) 6 SOT 721 (Ahd), wherein it was held that exemption is not available for a purchase of property abroad. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued which was replied by the assessee and finally AO added the capital gain to the tune of Rs.11,81,76,071/- to the income of the assessee on the ground that the investment of capital gain in the property located abr…

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

…18(3), Mumbai in ITA No. 1761/Mum/ 2012 for AY 2008- 09, wherein claim of benefit u/s 54F was denied to the assessee. iii. By relying on decision of Hon'ble ITAT 'D' Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Leena J Shah vs ACT, Circle- 1(1), Baroda reported in (2006) 6 SOT 721 (Ahd.), wherein the claim of assessee while reinvesting in property outside India was not allowed u/s 54F. iv. On the basis of these decisions, the AO makes an argument in favour of interpretation of the provisions of the Act in a holistic manner and in the appropriate context, to arrive at its proper meaning, that is, the context of section I.T.A.…

I.T.O. (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SMT. TRUPTI DEEPAK SANGHANI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…1 is allowance of deduction under section 54 on investment in property outside India. The AO is of the view that invt within India is only eligible for deduction. He relied on decision of Hon. ITAT, Ahmedabad in Leena J Shah vs ACIT, circle 1(1), Baroda [2006]6 SOT 721 (Ahd). 9. The latest judicial position on the matter is as under: a. The decision of Hon. ITAT in case of Leena J. Shah has been reversed by Gujarat High Court in [2017] 392 ITR 18 b. In ITO vs Mr. Nishant LalitJ adhav [ITA No. 6883/MUM/2014] dated 26.04.2017 Hon. ITAT, Mumbai has followed above decision. Both the above has ruled that prior to…

VIKRAM LULLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…of a Flat No.25A, Maher Apartment Co-op. Hsg. Society and claimed deduction u/s 54 on the strength of investment in another house property situated at Hong Kong. However, Ld. AO primarily relying on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal rendered in Leena J.Shah [6 SOT 721] opined that the deduction u/s 54 was not available to the assessee against investment made outside India. Consequently, deduction u/s 54 was denied to the assessee and taxable LTCG was assessed @ Rs.411.69 Lacs. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 28/11/2016 wherein the stan…

ITO (IT) 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. DHAVAL VATSAL LILALNI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer (It)-3(1)(1), Shri Dhaval Vatsal Lilani, Room No. 1627, 201, Balaji Darshan, Air India Building, Above Hotel Shabrari, Nariman Point, Vs. Tilak Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400054 Pan: Addpl4609L (Appellant) (Respondent)

…3 fact the decision was not challenged by the revenue only due to low tax effect and was not accepted on merit. 3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the decision in the case of Leena, J Shah 6 SOT 721 (2006) Ahmedabad wherein the AO’s action of denial of exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961 on the ground that the investment was made by the assessee in purchasing the residential house outside India. 4. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred ignoring the memorandum explaining the provisions of th…

ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. NISHANT LALIT JADHAV, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhincome-Tax Officer 3(1), Room No.114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard Pier, N.M.Road, Mumbai 400 038 ...... Appellant Vs. Mr. Nishant Lalit Jadhav, Flat No.601, 6Th Floor, Madhuban Chs, 51, Tps Road, Borivali (W) Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Aappj 3988L .... Respondent

…l property in India in investing the same in the residential apartment in New York, USA(Outside India) without appreciating the fact that claim of exemption of Section 54F of the I T. Act, has not been allowed by the Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Leena J Shah 6 SOT 721 (ITO Ahmedabad)” 3. In this appeal, although Revenue has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, but the solitary grievance is against the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing assessee’s claim for exemption under section 54 of the Act. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the respondent assessee is a Non-resident Indian(NRI) and during the year under…

ITO TDS 3 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND HOMI KERMANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito Tds 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aappk3340Q Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Shri R.K. Kotain (Ar)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,D,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO TDS 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1st Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. AAPPK3340Q Revenue by Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) Respondent by Shri R.K. Kotain (A…