DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 50C of the Act without making any reference to the Stamp Authority's valuation and indulging in estimate based on stamp duty M/s Forbes and Company Ltd, Mumbai. ITA no 1002&4493/Mum/2017 ITA .no 1816/Mum/2019 & ITA no.1682/Mum/2021. paid thereby giving a favourable outcome to the assessee who also failed to discharge its onus of providing the Stamp Authority

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

50C of the Act, the same analogy would apply for of the Act, the same analogy would apply for provisions of provisions of Section 43CA of the Act also as similar proviso of the Act also as similar proviso is available in is available in Section 43CA of the Act also. Hence, of the Act also. Hence, respectively following

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

50C of the Act, the same analogy would apply for of the Act, the same analogy would apply for provisions of provisions of Section 43CA of the Act also as similar proviso of the Act also as similar proviso is available in is available in Section 43CA of the Act also. Hence, of the Act also. Hence, respectively following

ASHWIN AMULAKH PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(1), RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal of Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri. Ashwin Amulakh Prekh Acit 22 (1), Mumbai 503, Kailash Palace, Upashraya Lane, Vs. Gharkopar East, Mumbai -400077 Pan No.Aacpp3264F .. Appellant Respondent .. Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Sivaji Ghote, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 09-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 09-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 50C of the Act, the value so adopted or assessed by DVO shall be taken as full value of 3 consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. If the fair market value determined by the DVO is less than the market value so adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority, the AO shall take such fair market

M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS provisions. The assessee has filed details of expenses and various claims settled by M/s. Dosti Realty Limited before the Assessing Officer. After considering the details submitted by the assessee Assessing Officer after considering the propounding scheme filed before the Hon'ble High Court in the month of March, 2008 he has listed the factual matrix in his order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS provisions. The assessee has filed details of expenses and various claims settled by M/s. Dosti Realty Limited before the Assessing Officer. After considering the details submitted by the assessee Assessing Officer after considering the propounding scheme filed before the Hon'ble High Court in the month of March, 2008 he has listed the factual matrix in his order

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AMARDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri. Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Central Circle -1(3), Mumbai Amardeep Constructions Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha 7/08, Patidar Complex, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Kannamwar Nagar No. 2, Near 400020 Vikas High School Vikhroli East, Mumbai 400083 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaufa3513A (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. J.P. Bairagra& Ms. Rupa Nanda /Revenue By: Shri. Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr)

TDS amounts since AY 2017 have been accumulated and remain unclaimed amount to Rs. 3.38 crore.The Ld. AR respectfully relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Manjusha Estates (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer 393 ITR 644, wherein it has been held that Tribunal was not right in law in rejecting project

SANKALPAN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6010/Mum/2017 & 2400/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 &2013-14)

section 50C was not attracted to lease hold rights and therefore the addition of Rs. 2,72,66,500/- should have been deleted by the Hon. CIT(A). 3. The Hon. CIT (A) erred hi confirming the addition of Rs. 49,631/-, u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T Act 1961 on account of non-deduction of TDS

MEMA ENGINEERS & CONTRCTORS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Mema Engineers & Ito 6(3)(3), Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai B Wing, G6, Navbharat Estate, Vs. Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewri (W), Mumbai – 400 015 Pan: Aaach 1383F (Appellant) (Respondent)

50C is not applicable as it is a business income. Similarly in the instant case, the assessee treated the plot as stock in trade and not the capital assets. Moreover, we find that the ownership of the plot is the collector of Mumbai and 50% share of income has to be paid as 7 M/s. Mema Engineers & Contractors

GAUTAM JYOTI CO OPERATIVE HSG SOCIETY ,GIRGAON MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19 1 1 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai Society 304, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Gautam Jyoti Co-operative HSG Parel, Mumbai 400012 Society Limited Gr Floor Amar Vs. Niwas, 175/189 RajaramMohanray, Girgaon, Mumbai 400004 PAN: AADAG3838L Appellant) : Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Singh Adv. and Shivali S. Mhatre- Adv. : Shri. SwapnilChoudhary Sr. AR Revenue by : 29.10.2025 Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement

VOLTAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS. 3.2 As evident from grounds in cross-appeals, the following issues crop up from the orders of lower authorities: - No. Nature of Additions Amount (Rs.) A. Non-transfer Pricing Grounds 1. Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.117.90 Lacs 2. Capital gains u/s. 50C of the Act Rs.342.23 Lacs B. Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. TP adjustment on Share Application Money Rs.160.09 Lacs

VOLTAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS. 3.2 As evident from grounds in cross-appeals, the following issues crop up from the orders of lower authorities: - No. Nature of Additions Amount (Rs.) A. Non-transfer Pricing Grounds 1. Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.117.90 Lacs 2. Capital gains u/s. 50C of the Act Rs.342.23 Lacs B. Transfer Pricing Grounds 3. TP adjustment on Share Application Money Rs.160.09 Lacs

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

50C is even applicable making retrospective application to section 43CA of the Act as well. The ld. A.R was unable to place on record before us any direct decision where the first proviso of section 43CA which has been brought into effect from 1-4-2021 was held to be applicable retrospectively. In such scenario, we place reliance

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

50C is even applicable making retrospective application to section 43CA of the Act as well. The ld. A.R was unable to place on record before us any direct decision where the first proviso of section 43CA which has been brought into effect from 1-4-2021 was held to be applicable retrospectively. In such scenario, we place reliance

ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & CO.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Vice-And Shri Pawan Singh

TDS of ` 1,178,136 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in disallowing the expenditure of ` 1,178,136 under section 3 ITA No. 5536 & 5540 Mum 2011-Forbes & Co. Ltd. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that no tax was deducted at source on payments made

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

TDS was already deposited at \nthat time. \nThe balance amount of liability is being finalised by our Estate Department in \nconsultation with HDFC Ltd. \nHope that this clarifies the position to you.” \n\n74 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \n\n21. 4. On the above stated factual position, against which nothing

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 2(2)2, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Sa No.462/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1449/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Sa No.461/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7382/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax Corporation Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2) P.K. Kurne Chowk, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai – 400020 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacm3025E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

TDS is not tenable on the ground that once the assessee is debiting profit and loss account, it automatically is crediting the party account based on matching principle. The accounting principles passes in his own books to suit its taxability or otherwise. 7.3. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. DRP. We find that this Tribunal

SURENDRA S. GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 24(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.5791/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Surendra S. Gupta Additional Commissioner Of 102-106, ‘A’ Wing Income Tax 24(3) बनाम/ Zaitoon Apartments,182 C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhawan Vs. S.V.Road,Goregaon (W) B.K.C, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 062 Mumbai -400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpg-5931-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Section 50C, added the differential amount of Rs.1,03,013/- to the income of the assessee. The second addition of Rs.1 Lacs pertain to adhoc disallowance to account for personal element against sales promotion, telephone, travel and medical expenditure claimed by the assessee during the impugned AY. The last adjustment pertain to Tax Deduction at Source [TDS