ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

capital gain is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the t or constructing the residential house within the t or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub section (1) states that the stipulated therein. Proviso to sub section (1) states that the stipulated therein. Proviso to sub section

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gain is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub-section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub- section (1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

GURUVASTU PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Guruvastu Properties P. Ltd. Dcit – 1(1)(4) 47, 7Th Floor, Tardeo Ac Market 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034 M K Road, Mumbai-400 020

capital gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115 J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115 J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub-sections (4) of section 115 JA or (5) of section 115 JB of the Act. Thus while an assessment u/s 115J

BATLIBOI LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

115J. By way of illustration, he pointed out that clause (f) of Explanation-1 and clause (2) itself shows that any income to which provision of section 10, 10A, 10B or section 11 applies, then it requires exclusion of such income from the book profit which has so credited to the profit & loss account likewise if a capital receipt which

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. LARSEN & TOUBRO FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Capital Gains only subject to adjustment as envisaged by us in Paragraph 5.1 above. Resultantly, Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed which makes Ground No. 8 infructuous. 5.3 Ground Numbers 2 & 3 are related with gains on securitization of certain assets. In this regard, the Ld. AR drew attention to the fact that this matter stood

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Capital Gains only subject to adjustment as envisaged by us in Paragraph 5.1 above. Resultantly, Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed which makes Ground No. 8 infructuous. 5.3 Ground Numbers 2 & 3 are related with gains on securitization of certain assets. In this regard, the Ld. AR drew attention to the fact that this matter stood

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Capital Gains only subject to adjustment as envisaged by us in Paragraph 5.1 above. Resultantly, Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed which makes Ground No. 8 infructuous. 5.3 Ground Numbers 2 & 3 are related with gains on securitization of certain assets. In this regard, the Ld. AR drew attention to the fact that this matter stood

L & T FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3980, 3981 & 3982/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) L & T Finance Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Taxation Department, L&T House, Tax-Circle 2(2) R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income L & T Finance Limited बनाम/ Tax-Circle 2(2) Taxation Department, L&T House, R.No.545,5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate Vs. M.K.Marg,Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacl-8668-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Capital Gains only subject to adjustment as envisaged by us in Paragraph 5.1 above. Resultantly, Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed which makes Ground No. 8 infructuous. 5.3 Ground Numbers 2 & 3 are related with gains on securitization of certain assets. In this regard, the Ld. AR drew attention to the fact that this matter stood

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gain is invested in 10 AY 2018-19 Sheriar Phirojsha Irani purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub-section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub-section (1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. SAVANNAH REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed without costs

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-11(1)(3), M/S. Savannah Real Estate Pvt. Room No.201, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 401/B, West View, M.K. Marg, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan: Aaics6458B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Aarjoo Garadia, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2018 O R D E R

capital gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

gains on sale/compulsory acquisition of land amounting to Rs 23,97,71,157/- as exempt from tax as p Section 96 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and settlement Act, 2013 and relying on CB circular No 36/2016 dated 15.10.2016 Short grant of foreign tax credit 10. Erred in confirming the action

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

gains on sale/compulsory acquisition of land amounting to Rs 23,97,71,157/- as exempt from tax as p Section 96 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and settlement Act, 2013 and relying on CB circular No 36/2016 dated 15.10.2016 Short grant of foreign tax credit 10. Erred in confirming the action

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

gains on sale/compulsory acquisition of land amounting to Rs 23,97,71,157/- as exempt from tax as p Section 96 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and settlement Act, 2013 and relying on CB circular No 36/2016 dated 15.10.2016 Short grant of foreign tax credit 10. Erred in confirming the action

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

gains on sale/compulsory acquisition of land amounting to Rs 23,97,71,157/- as exempt from tax as p Section 96 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and settlement Act, 2013 and relying on CB circular No 36/2016 dated 15.10.2016 Short grant of foreign tax credit 10. Erred in confirming the action

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 10. As we have decided the appeal on the short issue regarding the retrospective effect of the third proviso to section 50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before

M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 10. As we have decided the appeal on the short issue regarding the retrospective effect of the third proviso to section 50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before

DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 10. As we have decided the appeal on the short issue regarding the retrospective effect of the third proviso to section 50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before

SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIECLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 10. As we have decided the appeal on the short issue regarding the retrospective effect of the third proviso to section 50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before