← All Phrases

“Section 56(2)(vii)(v)”

Section References (mined)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)(v)3 judgments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) -2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA nos

ITA 3176/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. & Shri AshwinFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 250

discarded asset amount to Rs.28543/- and loss on sale of asset Rs.22,728, prior period expenses Rs.35,15,598/- and addition under section 56(2)(vii)(v) read with section 50C amount to Rs.79,62,000/- which works out total amount to Rs.17,33,88,833/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

ITA 3175/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Adv. & Shri Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT DR
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 250

discarded asset amount to Rs.28543/- and loss on sale of asset Rs.22,728, prior period expenses Rs.35,15,598/- and addition under section 56(2)(vii)(v) read with section 50C amount to Rs.79,62,000/- which works out total amount to Rs.17,33,88,833/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee

REKHA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 29(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2406/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhrekha Singh Vs. Ito 29(3)(2) F 1103, Sai Radha 307, 3Rd Floor, C-10, Complex, Lbs Marg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bhandup (W), Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Auxps8355F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh IyerFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

submitted that since the agreement for the property was entered on 16.12.2010, therefore, the same should be taken for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii)(v) of the Act and not the date of registration being 28.12.2014. The Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision