NIAMAT MAHROOF VIRJI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1964/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Niamat Mahroof Virji, I.T.O. 17(3)(3), बनाम/ Unit 232, 2 Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, V. Bussa Udyog Bhavan, Opp Parel P.O., T.J. Road, Mumbai. Sewree. Mumbai – 400 015. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aahpv1071H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

16A of that Act. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “Valuation Officer” shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed

TATA DIGITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Tata Digital Private Limited, Central Processing Centre/The Army & Navy Building 148, M G Deputy Commissioner Of Income Road, Opposite Kala Ghoda Fort Vs. Tax 1(3)(1), Mumbai, Mumbai. Mumbai City-400 001 Pan No. Aahct 2205 N Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 14/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2022

capital gain of Rs.3,97,84,884/-with Rs.3,97,84,884/ with the the business business loss loss of of Rs.59,22,83,654/ Rs.59,22,83,654/-.( ref- Sch BP, Sch-CG & Sch CG & Sch- CYLA) ,Which is not correct/permissible, as per the ,Which is not correct/permissible, as per the provisions of provisions of Sec.72

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

gain in respect of capital asset acquired in foreign currency is required to be first computed in foreign currency and thereafter converted into INR for tax purposes. b. Investment in shares was made by the Bank and its offshore subsidiaries in foreign currency. Sales proceeds were also received in foreign currency. Therefore, pursuant to section 48 read with Rule

BSI SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Gains on account of the following;- 22 ITA No.6992/Mum/2008. M/s.BSI Securities International Limited. (i] The provisions of section 50C(1J clearly states that where the consideration as a result of transfer by an assessee of his capital asset being land or building or both is less than the value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority, the value adopted for the purposes

RADHARAMAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Radharaman Constructions Asst. Cit, Circle – 19(3), Ground Floor, Shri Kunj, Mumbai 3A Altamount Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 026

16A of that Act, Explanation 1. —For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2 - For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which '-the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

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)

capital gains on sale of land in terms of Section 50C(2) of the Act based on the reports obtained from DVO in respect of the subject mentioned properties. The assessee is at liberty to make all arguments including seeking relief of the tolerance limit of 5% to 10% variation in sale consideratiuon vis-à-vis the consideration fixed

VIVINA CO OP HSG SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 15(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am M/S Vivina Co. Op Hsg Society Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rg 15(2) Ltd. Vs. S.V. Rd, Andheri (W), Mumbai Mumbai-400 058 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaaav2507L Assessee By .. Surji D. Chheda, Ar Revenue By .. B.S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 05-04-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 05-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

gain is within the provisions of law or not. The relevant provisions of section 55A of the Act reads as under: - “55A Reference to Valuation Officer 2 With a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset for the purposes of this Chapter, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of capital asset to a Valuation Officer

ASHAPURA MINECHEM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2019-20 Ashapura Minechem Limited, Adit, 3Rd Floor, Centralized Processing Centre, Jeevan Udyog Building, Vs. Income Tax Department, 278, D.N. Road, Fort, Bengaluru Mumbai. Pan : Aaaca0957F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain offered in the original return of income. 6. The Ld.CIT(A), however, took the view that the above said claim of the assessee is in the nature of “incorrect claim” apparent from the information given in the return. Accordingly, he upheld the adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return of income

MUKESH KISHINDAS BATHIJA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Gains as the SDV was nearly double the sale consideration as per the sale deed and there was no evidence to prove that it was a distress sale.\n6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. At the outset, we note that section 50C provides as under:\n“50C. (1) Where the consideration received

BHAVESH SHANTILAL GOHIL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhavesh Shantilal Gohil A-1304, Gohil Mansion, Irani Wadi, Shantilal Mody X Road No. 2, Asian Bakary Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067 Pan: Abkpg2287Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 35(1)(2) R. No. 2, C-12, Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

16A of that Act. 32[Explanation 1].—for the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). 33[Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

MOHAMMED KHALID HABIB PARIHAR,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O., WARD-31(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains based on stamp duty value under section 50C of the Act. It was further held that only during the appellate proceedings, the assessee requested to refer the case to the Departmental Valuation Officer (“DVO”). The learned CIT(A) held that the request made by the assessee for the valuation of the impugned land by the DVO is unacceptable

ALL IN DIA FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6555/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) All India Federation Of Co- Acit – 1(1), बनाम/ Operative Spinning Mills Aayakar Bhavan, V. Ltd., Mumbai – 400020. 2 Nd Floor, Canada Building, 226, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabca 1971 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

gain u/s 50 of the Act with respect to units situated at first floor sold vide agreement to sale dated 29-05-2008 for sale consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000/- as against the value adopted by stamp duty authorities for registration purposes of Rs.1,71,75,000/- . There is no dispute with respect to agreement to sale dated

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate

ZOEB ABBASBHAI KUDRATI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 15(3)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3143/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

section 16A of the Act”. 11. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities. 12. We have heard counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case

JAYANT SHAMJI CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Bijayananda Pruseth

capital gains declared by the assessee after taking into consideration the valuation report of the DVO. Being aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) by referring to the valuation report of the DVO u/s 56 of the Act r.w.s 16A(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, whereby

VICKI ELECTRONICS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-31(3)()5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Income Tax Officer Vicki Electronics, Gala 31(3)(5), Bandra Kurla No. 23, Back Side Complex, Sidhpura Industrial Mumbai –400051 Estate, Off. S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aaafv0824B (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 55A of the Act r.w.s. 16A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as also the principles of natural 3 justice while valuing the Appellant's immovable property. 8. The CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in overlooking the fact that the DVO made the valuation of immovable property without following the accepted principles of valuation, which

RAMESH S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhramesh S. Shah Vs. The Dcit, 203, A Wing Peninsula Central Circle -5(3) Corporate Park Ganpatrao Room No. 1906, 19Th Kadam Marg, Floor, Air India Building Lower Parel, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400013 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aagps9863H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Agnes P. Thomas Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2023

gain on sale of property as per the deeming provisions of Sec. 50C of the Act by taking the value of the property assessed by stamp duty authority. After perusal of the above facts and material on record we find that assessee has objected before the assessing officer regarding the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority on the reason