“Section 49(1)”

KAMINI VELMURUGAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamini Velmurugan, Income Tax Officer, 18/369, Rajeshwari Chs, Ward-42(2)(3), Subhasnagar, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Agzpn9256A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Sailee Gujarathi For Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 19-11-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 12-12-2023, Wherein The Ao Has Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs. 42,50,000/- As Short Term Capital Gains U/S. 45 Of The Act In Absence Of Any Explanation/Evidences Submitted By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Immoveable Property As Well As Cost Of Acquisition. The 2 Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Dismissed The Appeal On Account Of Delayed Filing & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “J-SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

JANARDAN NAMDEV GAWALI,AMBARNATH vs. ITO WARD2(2) KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawaljanardan Namdev Gawali Palegaon, Anandnagar, Ambarnath Thane, Kalyan - Dombivali Maharashtra - 421502 ............... Appellant Pan: Apgpg9048B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), J-63/12 Addl., Murbad Rani Mansion ……………… Respondent Industrial Area Midc, 2Nd Floor Murbad Road Kalyan, Kalyan – Dombivali Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Ms. Mamta Watwani Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

despite the fact that the plot was inherited by the assessee from his ancestors prior to 01.04.1981, thereby ignoring the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and unjustly denying the benefit of deduction under Section 48; c. That the learned AO erred in not accepting

MURTUZA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes, whereas ground no.3 stands dismissed

order on this point. The ld. counsel for the\nassessee contended that the authorities below were not justified in upholding the\napplication of section 49(1) as such a provision was not applicable to the present\nfacts. Per contra, the ld. DR reiterated the reasoning given

POONAM DHANANJAY SANDU,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

property transferred. The property in question was acquired by the Appellant through gift and inheritance, which falls under the scope of Section 49(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. The Appellant, in accordance with Section 55(2)(b)(ii), has opted to adopt the Fair Market Value ... clearly states: Where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under Section 49(1), and the asset was acquired by the previous owner before 01.04.2001, the cost of acquisition shall be either the cost to the previous owner

VISHNUKUMAR COKALCHAND GUPTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)

building and the second floor was subsequently gifted by his brother to the assessee, has not been disputed by the Department. As per section 49(1) of the Act, the cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which previous owner of the property

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“D” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI

DOW CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“D” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI