“Section 50(1)”

CHANDRA LALIT SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Income Tax Officer, 25-26, 6Th Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), Western Court Building, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 83, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400012. Marine Drive, Mumbai-400002. Pan : Acips3131J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

factors, essentially bonafide factors, and, for this reason, Section 50C(1) should not come into play, it was an "unintended consequence" of Section 50(1) that even in such bonafide situations, this provision, which is inherently in the nature of an anti-avoidance provision, is invoked. Once this situation

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

were applicable to the facts of the case. The Block of assets never ceased to operate. Therefore, the provisions of section 50(1) or 50(2) of the Act were also not applicable. Accordingly, the ratio of the cited decision of United Marines did not apply to the facts ... applicable to the facts of the case. The Block of assets never ceased to operate. Therefore, the provisions of section 50(1) or 50(2) of the Act were also not applicable. We further find that identical issue came up for consideration by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai recently

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

depreciation allowance under section 32, section 50 provides for a special procedure for computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable assets. Section 50(1) deals with the cases where any block of depreciable assets do not cease to exist on account of transfer and Section 50(2) deals

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

depreciation allowance under section 32, section 50 provides for a special procedure for computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable assets. Section 50(1) deals with the cases where any block of depreciable assets do not cease to exist on account of transfer and Section 50(2) deals

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation allowance under section\n32, section 50 provides for a special procedure for computation of capital gains in\nthe case of depreciable assets. Section 50(1) deals with the cases where any block\nof depreciable assets do not cease to exist on account of transfer and Section 50(2)\ndeals

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

first appellate authority, which upheld\nthe addition made by the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short), vide order dated\n21.08.2024, by invoking Section 50(1) of the Act.\n5. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).\n6. We have heard ... transfer of depreciable assets forming part of the block of assets\nshould be treated as short term capital gain as per Section 50(1) of the Act or the rate\nof long term capital gain is to be applicable. For this, it is trite to reproduce the said\nprovision herein

LATE PRAVINCHANDRA DWARKADAS DALAL (LEGAL HEIR HITEN PRAVINCHANDRA DALAL),MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 42(3)(1) ERSTWHILE CIRCLE 33(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

been allowed as “short term capital gain” and deductions available u/s. 48 and 49 are to be allowed subject to provisions contained in section 50(1) and (2). 7.1. Considering the analysis done by ld. CIT(A) of past 14 years, in our view, the impugned property which was purchased

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI \nBEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nAND \nSHRI GIRISH

HDFC BANK LIMITED( AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH