Mumbai) 3. ITO v. Rasiklal N Satra

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

…G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT [2019] 105 taxmann.com 204/176 ITD 717 (ITAT Mumbai A Bench) [ITA No 1309/Mum/2016] 2. Dy. CIT v. Dawood Abdulhussain Gandhi [IT Appeal No 3788 (Mum) of 2016, dated 31-1-2018] (ITAT "F" Bench Mumbai) 3. ITO v. Rasiklal N Satra [2006] 98 ITD 335 [ITAT 'A' Bench Mumbai] 5.1 Further, the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 299/209 Taxman 628/(2012) 252 CTR 0336. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is reproduced as under: "12. A reading of the provisions contained…

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT [2019] 105 taxmann.com 204/176 ITD 717 (ITAT Mumbai A Bench) [ITA No 1309/Mum/2016] 2. Dy. CIT v. Dawood Abdulhussain Gandhi [IT Appeal No 3788 (Mum) of 2016, dated 31-1-2018] (ITAT "F" Bench Mumbai) 3. ITO v. Rasiklal N Satra [2006] 98 ITD 335 [ITAT 'A' Bench Mumbai] 5.1 Further, the assessee also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 299/209 Taxman 628/(2012) 252 CTR 0336. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is reproduced as under: "12. A reading of the provisions contained…

PRATHAMESH VIVEK KHOT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 41 2 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Prathamesh Vivek Khot 1502-1503 Dreams 1-A Wing, National E-Assessment Lbs Marg Bhandup (W), Centre, Delhi Vs. Mumbai-400 078 Maharashtra-400 078 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bsbpk6695K Assessee By : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2024

…erefore it cannot be said that assessee is owner of the property where he is a joint owner. For this proposition he relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in Prathamesh Vivek Khot; A.Y. 2017-18 case of income tax Officer versus Rasiklal N Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (MuM). He also submitted the copy of the purchase date of the property where the assessee and his father are the joint owners. ii. It was further submitted that the assessment order was passed on 7/4/2021 and in penalty proceedings on 26/4/2021 assessee sought an immunity. He referred to paragraph number 4 of the penalty order wherein the last pa…

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

…bench in the following cases – decisions of the coordinate bench in the following cases decisions of the coordinate bench in the following cases Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 7 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala (i) ITO vs Rasiklal N. Satra Rasiklal N. Satra [2006] 98 ITD 335 (MUM.) [2006] 98 ITD 335 (MUM.) (ii) Ashok G. Chauhan vs ACIT Ashok G. Chauhan vs ACIT [2019] 105 taxmann.com 204 [2019] 105 taxmann.com 204 (Mumbai - Trib.) (ii) Anant R Gawande vs ACIT [2022] 144 taxmann.com 127 (ii) Anant R Gawande vs ACIT [2022] 144 taxmann.com 127 (ii) Anant R Gawande vs ACIT [2022] 144 taxmann.com 127 (Mumbai - Trib.) 8. The…

ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, CIT(A), NFAC, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate PratyakshakarBhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AFNPG 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue by : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR : Date of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date of pronouncement 22/05/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee has…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-20(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 20(1) Vs. Ashok Govindji Room No. 619, Chauhan, 6Th Floor, Piramal B 301, Veena Beena Chambers, Parel, Chs Ltd., Acharya Dome Mumbai – 400012. Marg, Sewree Mumbai – 400014. Pan/Gir No. Aabpc7897A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Krishna Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Ms .Vasanti Patel.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…wn above, the assessee cannot be said to be the full owner of the property and thus cannot be denied exemption u/s 54 of the Act as claimed by him. Even otherwise as per the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vrs. Rasiklal N. Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum)/(2006) 100 TTJ 1039 (Mum), it has been categorically held that the word 'own' appearing in section 54F of the Act includes only such residential house which is fully and wholly owned by one person and not a residential house owned by more than one person. The above decision of ITO vrs. Rasiklal N. Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum)/(2006) 100 TTJ…

ANANT R GAWANDE,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give consequential relief

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

…-2013-14 submitted that the learned AO has erred in not accepting that, flat purchased by the assessee jointly with his wife cannot be considered as exclusive property for the purpose of section 54F as laid down by ITAT Mumbai in ITO v/s Rasiklal Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum). The learned AR then furnished the details of the properties, which are as under:- 1. Flat in Kohinoor CHSL, Pune purchased on 17/03/1998 2. Land at Jambhe acquired on 05/06/2009; 3. Flat in IndiabulIs’ 'SKY' acquired on 17/12/2009 and was registered on 25/02/2013. 4. Bunglow at Pune acquired on 04/05/2013 Further, the assessee sold Jambhe L…

HEMANT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Hemant Shah Acit-20(1), Mumbai 10, Oomed Sadan 58, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 Vs Pan : Aadps2405E Appellant Respondednt

…relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme ITA No. 4566/Mum/2017-Hemant Shah (AY 2013-14) Court in Alipati Ventaramaih 57 ITR 185 (SC); Gujarat High Court in Ushaben Jayantilal Sodhan 93 taxmann.com 453 (Guj (HC), decision of Tribunal in Rasiklal Satra (98 ITD 335), Ashok Chouhan (176 ITD 717), Smt. Vasanti Rangarajan 23 taxmann.com 299 (Madras HC), Kapil Nagpal (63 taxmann.com 336 (Delhi HC). 12. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. DR further submits that the assessee was owner of more than one residential house and the exemption claimed u/s 54…

ASHOK G. CHAUHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm (Division Bench) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1309/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) In The Matter Of;

…ith any right of ownership in t he said property, which was already transferred in the name of his daughter by way of gift deed. 6.3 Ld. AR relied upon this time to the decision of the coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vrs. Rasiklal N. Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum)/(2006) 100 TTJ 1039 (Mum), wherein it was held that Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital Gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house - Assessment year 1998-99 - Whether word 'own' appearing in section 54F includes only such residential house which is fully and wholly owned by one person and not a residential…

DCIT 5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DAWOOD ABDULHUSSAIN GANDHI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 3788/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Dawood Abdulhussain बिधम/ Tax-5(2)(2), Room No. 571, Gandhi, 102, Lohar Chawl, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai 400002. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabpg4337K (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

…rict literal interpretation, such a disqualification cannot be read by us in the said statutory provision. We find that a similar view had been taken by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of The Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Rasiklal N. Satra (2006) 98 ITD 335 (Mum), wherein the Tribunal while deliberating on the entitlement of the assessee towards claim of deduction under Sec. 54F had distinguished a joint ownership as against an absolute ownership of a residential property, by observing as under : “7. The only question remains as to whether assessee can be said to be the owner of that residential hou…

SUSHIL S. DESHPANDE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Dt Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…was regarded as share only and not the ownership. A part of house cannot be treated as one house and ownership of part house cannot be considered as ownership of one house. This fact is accepted by the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Rasiklal N Satra, 98 ITD 335 reads as under: “Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital Gains – Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house – Assessment year 1998-99 – Whether word „own‟ appearing in section 54F includes only such residential house which is fully and wholly owned by one person and not a residential house owned by more than one person – He…

DCIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SUMAN N. BHALLA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2010-11) DCIT-22(3), Vs. Smt. Suman N. Bhalla Mumbai (Appellant) 1204, Neel Siddhi Tower, Sector 12, Plot No. 195, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 705 (Respondent) PAN : ADQPB5249M Assessee by : Shri Subodh Ratnaparakhi Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist Date of Hearing : 19/12/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23/12/2016 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL, AM : This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 33, Mumbai dated 27.8.2014 by which CIT(A) deleted the pena…

SUMAN KADAM,THANE vs. ITO WD 2(4), THANE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2777/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Suman Kadam Ito, Ward 2(4), बनाम/ Vardaan, 6Th Floor, S/1, Narmada Apartment, Cabin Cross Road, Bhayandar (E), Ashar I. T. Park, Road No. 16-Z, Vs. Thane-401 105 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afipk 3600 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3256/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Ito, Ward 2(2), Suman Kadam Thane-400 604 Thane-401 105 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Vijay Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Debabrata Baidya सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 08.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 27.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 31.12.2010. 2

…d admitted, the same were found by him as non-residential. Further, even if considered residential, the same are only partly owned, which could not be equated with absolute ownership, relying for the purpose on the decision in ITO vs. Rasiklal N. Satra [2006] 98 ITD 335 (Mum). Further, the ld. CIT(A), following Rajesh Keshav Pillai vs. ITO [2011] 44 SOT 617 (Mum), restricted the exemption u/s. 54F to the capital gain on the sale of plot number 688, so that that qua plot number 99 was to be excluded. As regards the investment in the new residential house, reliance was placed for the purpose on the sum reflected in…