Mrs. Prema P. Shah & Sanjiv P. Shah v. ITO

VIJAY KRISHNAJI SAWANT ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvijay Krishnaji Sawant Income Tax Officer-32(2)(1) Vijay Niwas, Ceaser Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Opp. Bombay Cambridge School, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Amboli, Andheri Railway Station S.O., Mumbai-400 058 Pan/Gir No. Aapps 7027 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Respondent By : Shri Ankit Tiwari Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

…e within the stipulated period from the date of execution of registered transfer deed. In support of such contention, ld. Counsel relied upon the following decisions: 1. ITO vs. K. C. Gopalan [1999] 107 Taxman 591 (Kerala) 2. Mrs. Prema P. Shah vs. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 60 8. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representation submitted that since the MOU was not registered, the valuation as on the date of MOU cannot be considered. As regards the claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act, ld. DR strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and first appellate authority. 9. We have considered rival submissions in the l…

DEEPANKAR MOGHA,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(1) , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

…that the builder was entitled to development right in the property for construction of the building. So the opinion given is of no help to the assessee. The Id. AR has also placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prema P. Shah vs. ITO (100 ITD 60) and based on the said decision it has been argued that the assessee has to be treated as owner. However, on careful perusal of the said decision we find that the said decision is distinguishable. The property in the said case was on perpetual lease of 150 years. The Tribunal noted that the rent fixed was 'peppercorn' rent and was payable only if…

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

…to these two sections by replacing words "constructed, a residential house", with the words" constructed, one residential house in India" was perhaps necessitated by the reason that these are contrary decision. They are : (i) Mrs. Prema P. Shah v. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 60 (Mum.) (ii) Vinay Mishra v. Asstt. CIT (2013) 141 ITD 301/3O taxmann.com 341(Bang. -Trib.). The above decisions held that : There was nothing to suggest that the new residential property acquired should be situated in India, However, the view in favour of Revenue was expressed in the following cases holding that the residential property acquired s…

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

…ssment Year-2012-13 catena of judgment rendered by this Tribunal, few of which are listed below:- No. Title ITA No. Order dated 1. Nishant Lalit Jadhav Vs ITO 6883/Mum/2014 26/04/2017 2. Girdhar Mohanani Vs ITO 4591/Mum/2013 06/05/2015 3. Prema P.Shah Vs ITO 100 ITD 60 29/11/2005 4. ITO Vs Farokh Jal Deboo 4650/Mum/2013 05/02/2016 5. ITO Vs Girish M.Shah 3582/Mum/2009 17/02/2010 6. Dhun Jehan Contrcator Vs ITO 7058/Mum/2013 13/05/2015 7. N.Ranganathan Vs ITO 863/Mds/2014 26/06/2014 Considering the totality of facts, we direct Ld. AO to allow the aforesaid deduction u/s 54 to the assessee to the extent of invest…

ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI vs. FARHAD JAMSHED BOTTLEWALA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Cit– 21(1) V. Shri Farhad Jamshed Batliwala Room No. 116, 1St Floor, 7 Khan Estate, Batliwala Building, Piramal Chambers, Parel, M.M. Chottani Road, Mahim Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 016

…unsel for the assessee strongly relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, at the time of filing of return i.e. 25.03.2009 the decision of the Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Prema P. Shah v. ITO [100 ITD 60] which was decided on 29.11.2005 was very much available as on the date of investment and claim, where exemption was allowed on the investment made in a residential property outside India. Therefore, he submitted that the issue was highly debatable and there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in making a claim by t…

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

…nt assessment year the claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act could not be denied on this ground. In coming to such conclusion, the CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Prema P. Shah & Sanjiv P. Shah vs. ITO, 100 ITD 60 (Mum) , ITO vs. Girish M. Shah in ITA No.3582/Mum/2009 and Vinay Mishra vs. CIT , in ITA No.895/(bang) of 2012.Against such a decision of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Leena J. Shah(surpa), which has been rel…

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)

…dential house for his own purpose qualifies under the provisions of law for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. My decision on this gets support from the decision of the jurisdictional Mumbai ITAT’s decision in the case of Mrs. Prema P. Shah & Sanjiv P. Shah v. ITO [100 ITD 60(Mum)] and ITO v. Girish M. Shah in ITA No.3582/Mum/2009. Further, even I find that another judgment of ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Vijay Mishra vs. CIT in IT Appeal No.895(Bang.) of 2012 also supports my aforesaid decision. Even, while holding my decision in favour of the appellant based on aforesaid reasoning, I also derive strength with…