PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan

ARVINDER SINGH SAHNI,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

…he agreement for sale, the proposed date of possession of the property newly purchased, on which capital gain has been shown as exempt is 31.12.2018. 11. We observe that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan (2019) 413 ITR 248 (Bom) which is celebrated judgment on the issue, has held that the allottee gets title to the property on the issue of allotment letter and the payment of installments and delivery of possession, are just as follow up action and formality. 12. Therefore, the date of allotment is paramount for considering the deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act,…

MRS. URMILA JAGDISH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 33(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle 33(3), Mrs. Urmila Jagdish Bandra Kurla Mehta Complex, Bandra (E), 1604, E-Wing, Agarwal Vs. Mmbai-400 051 Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Adipm5257E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

…at page 224, issued by the society pursuant to the redevelopment arrangement. 9. The learned AR further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Mumbai v. Vembu Vaidyanathan reported in [2019] 413 ITR 248 (Bom.), and submitted that in the said decision, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, after taking note of CBDT Circular No. 471 dated 15.10.1986 and Circular No. 672 dated 16.12.1993, has categorically held that for the purpose of computation of capital gains, the date of allotment of a residential unit under a construction scheme is to be reg…

BALJIT SINGH GAMBHIR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.912/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Baljit Singh Gambhir V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Tejmohan Singh, बिधम International Taxation, Advocate 527, Sector Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 10-D, Chandigarh Income Tax Officer, 160011 International Taxation, Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 400076 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpg9637H Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Krishna Kumar (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.912/MUM/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Baljit Singh Gambhir v/s. Income Tax Officer, C/o Tejmohan Singh, बिधम International Taxation, Advocate 527, Sector Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 10-D, Chandigarh Income Tax Officer, 160011 International Taxation, Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 400076 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AMGPG9637H Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Reven…

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

…t to hold the flat is conferred and mere fact that the possession was delivered later does not detract from the fact that the allottee was conferred a right to hold property on issuance of an allotment letter. In the case of PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan (2019) 413 ITR 248 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court the issue involved was whether the capital asset needs to be classified as long term from the date of execution of an agreement spelling out all the exact terms and conditions for acquisition or from the date of LOA, Reliance was placed on CBDT circulars dated 15 October 1986 and 16 December 1993 wherein it was clari…

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

…and relied upon the following\ncase laws which is supporting the case of assessee:-\n1. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT\n(2014) 363 ITR 54\n2 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan (2019)\n413 ITR 248\n3. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. Vembu Vaidyanathan\n[2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC)\n4. Anita D Kanjani v. ACIT being ITA No. 2291/Mum/2015\n5. Snehal Bimal Parekh v. PCIT (ITA No. 5489/Mum/2019) (ITAT, Mumbai)\n6 Fatema Jaffer Ghadiali Allias v. ITO (ITA No. 1876/Mum/2015)\n9. It was further submitted by Ld. AR that the imp…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SUASHISH DIAMONDS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5256 /MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2022-23 DCIT Suashish Diamonds Ltd. R. No. 573,5th Floor, 5th Floor, B Wing Suashish IT Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Park, CTS No. 68E, Datta Pada Mumbai- 400020 Road, Opp. Tata Steel Co., Borivali East PAN NO. AAACS 8246 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Shivram a/w Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Mr. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of conclusion of : 07/03/2025 Hearing Date of pronouncement : 29/05/2025…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SUASHISH DIAMONDS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5256 /MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2022-23 DCIT Suashish Diamonds Ltd. R. No. 573,5th Floor, 5th Floor, B Wing Suashish IT Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Park, CTS No. 68E, Datta Pada Mumbai- 400020 Road, Opp. Tata Steel Co., Borivali East PAN NO. AAACS 8246 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Shivram a/w Rahul Hakani Revenue by : Mr. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of conclusion of : 07/03/2025 Hearing Date of pronouncement : 29/05/2025…

SUCHETA OUMEYA KALE ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainsucheta Oumeya Kale Vs. Ito, Ward – 42(3)(4) 25-B, Goodwill Bldg, Kautilya Bhavan, Manmala Tank Road, Mahim Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 016. Mumbai – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aappk0489A (Applicant) (Respondent)

…e wants to compare the stamp duty valuation, the same shall be done on the basis of valuation as on 18.02.2011 and not 31.08.2017 as applied by the revenue, and in this regard supported his arguments by following decisions. 1. Pr. CIT Vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, 413 ITR 248 2. Pr. CIT Vs. Vembu Vaidayanathan, 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC). 3. Poonam Ramesh Sahajawani Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2252/Mum/2019. 3 Sucheta Oumeya Kale, Mumbai 4. Qamruddin Raffiuddin Siddiqui Vs. ITO, ITA No. 2067/Mum/2021. 4. However, from the order of Ld. CIT(A), I noticed that both the assertions / arguments of the assessee were not dealt, as accord…

R BIPINCHANDRA AND COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’ble Accountant Member ITA No. 3595/Mum/2024 for A.Y. 2013-14 R Bipinchandra And Company, Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), E-1, Hermes House, Vs. Mumbai Mama Paramanand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai 400 004. PAN : AAAFR4394N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Biren Gabhawala Respondent By : Shri R R Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 ORDER Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, President: By this appeal the appellant-asses…

DEEPA PAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ms. Deepa Pamnani Vs. The Income Tax Officer Pamnanai Hospital & Ward 20(1)(1) Research Center Piramal Chamber 33 Cf +6Qc , Railway Station Lal Baug Road, Prem Colony, Mandasur Mumbai 400012 Madhya Pradesh 458001 Pan Cstpp4472L (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Ca & Mr. Kapil Jain Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

…act if the assessee acquired a house property within specified time by using sale consideration, then proportionate capital gain is not charged to tax. Thus, Assessee has purchased a house property for Rs 3 Crores. In case of PCIT V Vembu Vaidyanathan [(2019) 413 ITR 248 (Bom) ] honourable Bombay High court has held that even ‘letter of allotment’ also satisfies the requirement of section 54F is allowable. Comparing that case with the case of this assessee, it stands on a better footing where the assessee has acquired 60 % of the existing property. The decision of Honourable Supreme court in the case of Suraj Lam…

SAMPATRAJ SANTOKCHAND MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KALYAN, KALYAN

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2016-17

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, HON’BLE PRESIDENT& SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2016-17 Sampatraj Santokchand Mehta, 105, Krishna Complex, Navallipeer Road, Kalyan West – 421 302. PAN:ADHPM-5469-P - Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1,Kalyan, 1st Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (West) -421 302 - Respondent- Appellant by : Shri Piyush Chhajed Respondent by : Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad, Sr.AR Date of Hearing : 14/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14/05/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASK…

BHOOMI VIPUL GHELANI,MUMBAI vs. AADL/JOINT. DY/ ACIT / ITO / NFAC, DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2058/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Bhoomi Vipul Ghelani, Yamnotri Apartments, Opp. Bhoomi Enclave, Dhanukar Wadi, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali(W) Mumbai – 400 067 Pan: Ajopp-0222-C ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Tralshawala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Cit-Dr & Ms. Vranda U Matkari सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/03/2023 आदेश/Order

…modalities to give effect to letter of allotment. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee in support of his submission placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) ACIT vs. Keyur Hemant Shah, 199 TTJ (Mum) 388 (ii) PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, 413 ITR 248 (Bom) The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further placed reliance on CBDT Circular No.471 dated 15/10/1986 and Circular No.672 dated 16/12/1993 to contend that letter of allotment should be considered as date of acquisition of property. 3.2 The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed that in the case of co-…

AKSHAY JANAK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC, DELHI

…he Appellant took us through the paper-book dated 07.07.2022 and additional paper-book filed on 08.07.2022. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan: (2019) 413 ITR 248. He submitted that the Capital Asset was held by 5 ITA. No. 267//Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the Appellant for more than 36 months and therefore, the capital gains arising on transfer of such Capital Asset were in the nature of long-term capital gains. The transfer of the Capital Asset took place on 30.09.2012 during the previous year rele…

TRILOK PARUMAL MOTIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyaltrilok Parumal Motiani, 213/214, Kalyandas Udyog Bhavan, Near Century Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aahpm3289N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-21(3)(4), 206, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian Respondent By : Sh. Purnesh Gururani, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2023 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai (For Short ‘Cit(A)’) Dated 30.04.2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…s subject to complete payment and other obligations to be fulfilled by the assessee and other counterparts. 11. To substantiate its version assessee relied upon following case laws I. CIT Vs TATA Services Ltd 122 ITR 594 (Bomb) II. PCIT Vs Vembu Vaidyanathan 413 ITR 248(Bomb) III. CIT Vs City Bank N.A 261 ITR 570 (Bomb) IV. Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs CIT 260 ITR 491 (Bomb) V. CIT Vs Rajasthan Mirror Manufacturing Co 6 ITA No. 4542 Mum 2019-Trilok Parumal Motiani 12. In view of the above factual matrix and the judicial pronouncement of honourable jurisdictional high court we set aside the orders of the au…

DILSHAD AHMED RANGREJ ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dilshad Ahmed Rangrej Cit, E2 Building No. 11, Sai Mahal Chs Ltd, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Sector 48, Seawood, Nerul, Navi Vs. Delhi Mumbai-400 706

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM Dilshad Ahmed Rangrej CIT, E2 Building No. 11, Sai Mahal Chs Ltd, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Sector 48, Seawood, Nerul, Navi Vs. Delhi Mumbai-400 706 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AFVPR0207E Assessee by : Sh. Shahank Mehta Revenue by : Sh. Ujjawal Chavan,SR AR Date of hearing: 22.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 19/12/2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2014-15 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appellate Centre [The learned C…