Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v. ITO

PHULCHAND RAMGOPAL AGARWAL LEGAL HEIR MR.PRADEEP AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Phulchand Ramgopal Agarwal, v/s. Assistant Commissioner of L/H – Mr. Pradeep Agarwal Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम 254B, Nirlon House, Dr. Annie 3(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai– Bandra Kurla Complex, 400 030, Maharashtra Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAJPA9414F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish Kumar Respondent by : Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT-DR) D…

NARSHI GOPALJI MANGE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

…НС),CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari - 92 ITR 9 (Delhi HC), Addl CIT v. K. S. Gupta - 119 ITR 372 (Andhra Pradesh HC), SAS Hotel Ltd v. ITO-4 ITD 297 (Madras ITAT), S. Balan alias Shanmugam Balkrishnan ChettiaF V. DCIT - 120 ITD 469 (Pune ITAT), Praveen Gupta v. ACIT - 137 TTJ 307 (Delhi ITAT} and Burmah Castrol Plc, In re - 175 Taxman 353 (AAR) He submitted that the copy of the loan and interest certificate from Reliance Capital and ING Vaisya Bank support the proof of payment of interest. 7.2 On the contrary, Ld. DR submitted that it is not known whether the loan taken by the assessee was meant towards purchasing of prop…

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

…Further, the Income Tax department had filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which is dismissed -Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC) In the case of Praveen Gupta v. ACIT (2012) 137 TTJ 307 the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal observed that Explanation (iii) to section 48 and section 2(42A) of the Act requires a capital asset to be 'held'. It is not necessary that to constitute a capital asset, the Appellant must be an owner of the Capital Asset through registration of the conveyance deed. By entering into an agreement to allot a flat, the Ap…

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

…rther, the Income Tax department had filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt of India which is dismissed -Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3,\nMumbai v. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 108 taxmann.com 339 (SC)\nIn the case of Praveen Gupta v. ACIT (2012) 137 TTJ 307 the Hon'ble Delhi\nTribunal observed that Explanation (iii) to section 48 and section 2(42A) of the\nAct requires a capital asset to be 'held'. It is not necessary that to constitute a\ncapital asset, the Appellant must be an owner of the Capital Asset through\nregistration of the conveyance deed. By entering into an agreement to allot a flat,\nt…

SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 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. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

…on of sale agreement is merely an assignment of rights in the property of the assessee with Act of registration under the Stamp Duty Act. Our view is fortified by the decisions of the Tribunal/Hon’ble High Courts in following cases:- a. Praveen Gupta vs ACIT (137 TTJ 307)(ITAT Delhi) b. CIT vs Laxmi devi Ratani (2005) 198 CTR (MP) 336 c. CIT vs Tata Services ltd. 122 ITR 594 d. CIT vs Vijay Flexible Containers 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) 10 A.Y. 2016-17 Sonal Ashish Soni An Individual e. CIT vs Mormasji Man Charji Vaid 168 CTR (Guj.)(FB) 565 f. Arundhati Balkrishna vs CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Guj.) 85. 2.6. In view of the abov…

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. MICHELLE N. SANGHVI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumaracit, Circle - 21(2) Shri Michelle N. Sanghvi Room No. 115, 1St Floor 402, Kewal Indl. Estate Piramal Chambers Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Parel, Mumbai 400012 Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 Pan – Arsps1466M Appellant Respondent

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ACIT, Circle - 21(2) Shri Michelle N. Sanghvi Room No. 115, 1st Floor 402, Kewal Indl. Estate Piramal Chambers Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Parel, Mumbai 400012 Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 PAN – ARSPS1466M Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri M.C. Omi Ningeshen Respondent by: Shri P.P. Sagar Date of Hearing: 03.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 13.02.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 17.…

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

…on of sale agreement is merely an assignment of rights in the property of the assessee with Act of registration under the Stamp Duty Act. Our view is fortified by the decisions of the Tribunal/Hon’ble High Courts in following cases:- a. Praveen Gupta vs ACIT (137 TTJ 307)(ITAT Delhi) b. CIT vs Laxmi devi Ratani (2005) 198 CTR (MP) 336 5 Vembu Vaidyanathan c. CIT vs Tata Services ltd. 122 ITR 594 d. CIT vs Vijay Flexible Containers 186 ITR 693 (Bom.) e. CIT vs Mormasji Man Charji Vaid 168 CTR (Guj.)(FB) 565 f. Arundhati Balkrishna vs CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Guj.) 85. 2.6. In view of the above, we are usefully quoting…