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

168\ntaxmann.com 328 (Mum Trib.) (SB)\n14. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the\nSpecial Bench in the above case has considered the issue of applicable tax rate for\ncapital gain arising out of depreciable asset chargeable under section 50 and held\nthat the legal fiction created under section 50 would not convert

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

168 taxmann.com 328 (Mum Trib.) (SB) 14. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Special Bench in the above case has considered the issue of applicable tax rate for capital gain arising out of depreciable asset chargeable under section

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Capital Gain at Rs.10,02,415/-. The agreement for purchase of the new property was registered on 06/03/2009 and thus the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed exemption. The assessee purchased flat No.202 in Spice Building on 06/03/2009 and paid Rs.6,01,697/- on 04/07/2012 and 24 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Rs.04,86,625/- on 16/07/2012 and got the possession

UNIVERSAL MEDICARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

section 50B and at the same time can stay claim that it is not a going concern transaction but subject to adjustment. The ld. DR vehemently submits that the transfer of business on which the Capital Gains arise is not dependent on the supply agreement. In support of her submission, the ld. DR for the revenue relied upon the following

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

168 taxmann.com 328 (Mum)(SB) dealt with the issue to arrive at the conclusion that capital gains arising out of sale of depreciable asset u/s.50 even though deemed to be capital gain arising out of transfer of short term capital asset, that fiction is to be confined only to section

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Computation of - Assessee sold certain property in which he was tenant - Tribunal held that what was to be allowed as deduction for working out capital gains was not cost of tenancy but cost of ownership rights - Tribunal remanded matter to Assessing Officer to work out market value of property

NELCO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 15(2)(1) Nelco Limited Room No.357, 2Nd Floor, El-6, Electronic Zone, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1983C

Section 50B of the Act to explain that when there is a slump sale of undertaking, the profits and gains computed by reduction of net worth of the undertaking or the division, which shall be considered as the cost of acquisition for computation of capital gain. He further referred to explanation 1, where net worth is the aggregate value

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Computation of - Assessee sold certain property in which he was tenant - Tribunal held that what was to be allowed as deduction for working out capital gains was not cost of tenancy but cost of ownership rights - Tribunal remanded matter to Assessing Officer to work out market value of property

DHANANJAY MADHUKAR NAIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhananjay Madhukar Naik V. Ito 12(3)(3) 306, Meghdoot Chsl, Sahaji Raje Marg Room No. 1631, 16Th Floor Koldongri, Vile Parle (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400057 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Alrpn7498M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Masand Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

section is to promote housing and if assessee has invested the substantial part of the capital gain derived from transfer of the residential house in purchase or construction of another residential house within prescribed time but possession could not be received or construction could not be completed within the said prescribed time, the deduction u/s. 54 or 54F should

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

168 CTR (Guj.)(FB) 565 f. Arundhati Balkrishna vs CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Guj.) 85. 2.6. In view of the above, we are usefully quoting the relevant portion from the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (122 ITR 594) (supra):- Quote:- “What is a capital asset is defined in section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under that

PRAKASH GAJANAN BHOIR,THANE vs. ITO WD- 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

gains but we need not refer to the same as they have no relevance to the controversy before us. The only other section which is important for our purpose is section 55 of the Act which lays down the meaning of cost of acquisition, etc., for the purposes of sections 48,49 and 50 in cases falling thereunder. The assessee

DRAUPADIBAI GAJANAN BHOIR,KALYAN vs. ITO WD3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

gains but we need not refer to the same as they have no relevance to the controversy before us. The only other section which is important for our purpose is section 55 of the Act which lays down the meaning of cost of acquisition, etc., for the purposes of sections 48,49 and 50 in cases falling thereunder. The assessee

PRATIBHA GAJANAN BHOIR,KALYAN vs. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

gains but we need not refer to the same as they have no relevance to the controversy before us. The only other section which is important for our purpose is section 55 of the Act which lays down the meaning of cost of acquisition, etc., for the purposes of sections 48,49 and 50 in cases falling thereunder. The assessee

PRAMILA GAJANAN BHOIR,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

gains but we need not refer to the same as they have no relevance to the controversy before us. The only other section which is important for our purpose is section 55 of the Act which lays down the meaning of cost of acquisition, etc., for the purposes of sections 48,49 and 50 in cases falling thereunder. The assessee

PRADEEP GAJANAN BHOIR,THANE vs. ITO WD- 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

gains but we need not refer to the same as they have no relevance to the controversy before us. The only other section which is important for our purpose is section 55 of the Act which lays down the meaning of cost of acquisition, etc., for the purposes of sections 48,49 and 50 in cases falling thereunder. The assessee

SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

168 CTR (Guj.)(FB) 565 f. Arundhati Balkrishna vs CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Guj.) 85. 2.6. In view of the above, we are usefully quoting the relevant portion from the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (122 ITR 594) (supra):- Quote:- “What is a capital asset is defined in section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under that

SHRI GIRISH P. RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanshri Girish P. Rupani Acit-23(1) Room No. 122, 1St Floor, Makhija Chambers, 196, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Vs. Pan: Aaapr6723P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

gain. The Delhi High Court noted the judgment of this Court in the case of Tata Services Ltd. (supra) and distinguished it on facts. The Court said that in the case before it, it had to determine whether the damages received by the assessee were in respect of a capital asset. There was a breach of contract and the assessee

GEETHA MEHRA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Geetha Mehra, Acit (3)(1)(1), C/O Synergy Art Foundation Ltd., Room No. 607, Aayakar Vs. 6/19 Ii Floor, Grants Building Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400020. (Formerly Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 44) Pan No. Aagpm 9039 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ajay Ghone, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Kailash Kanojia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022

168/-, a sum of ₹93,376/- total payment of - represents card payment towards personal drawings such as clothes card payment towards personal drawings such as clothes card payment towards personal drawings such as clothes books and payments to departmental store etc., which would books and payments to departmental store etc., which would books and payments to departmental store etc., which