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)

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

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

16A, the same is an allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 3. Provision for Depreciation of investments of Rs.46,19,11,355 3.1 In the aforesaid assessment year, the Bank had debited an amount of Rs.297,92,33,446 as provision for depreciation on investments. This figure comprises of provision made in respect of securities held

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

6 dated 13.02.2021, the appellant has adjusted/set off STCG appellant has adjusted/set off STCG-short term capital gain short term 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

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

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)

gains in the hands of the appellant relevant to his share. accordingly. 6. In the result., the appeal is partly allowed. After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as considering the orders passed by revenue authorities and submissions made by both the parties, we find that as per Section

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

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)

6,29,47,157 Total 18.1. The ld. AO adopted the valuation determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority and observed that the sale is higher than the sale capital gains in terms of Section 50C of the Act. The ld. DRP directed the ld. AO to refer the issue to the Departmental Valuation Officer and recompute the capital gains

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

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

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

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

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

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

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

THE BOMBAY SAMACHAR PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains, accordingly. The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.1450/Mum./2023 i. The AO and CIT(A) should have appreciated that the said property was in dispute and on account of the dispute fetched a value lower than that assessed by the Stamp Duty Authorities. ii. The AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the request of the assessee in calling

PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpyramid Developers, 2Nd Floor, Sharda Bhavan, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 400 005, Pan: Aaifp1958J ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 32(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Respondent

gains from transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration:] [Provided further that in the transfer of such residential unit takes place during the case of transfer of an asset, period beginning from the 12th day of November, 2020 and being a residential unit, the ending on the 30th day of June, 2021; provisions