BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

1A Ward – 15 (1) (1) Vs. Koper Khairane Aayakar Bhavan Maharashtra 400708 Maharishi Karve Road New Marine Lines Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN ACIPJ0205E Assessee by Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala Revenue by Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. (DR), 25th August, 2024 Date of hearing 15th October 2024 Date of pronouncement O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI

SUNBEAM MONOCHEM P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita No. 524 & 525/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Sunbeam Monochem (P) Ltd., Acit, Circle-8(2)(2), 201/B Runwal & Omkar E- Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Square, Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Mumbai-400020. Singnal, Eastern Express Highway, Sion (E) Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aabcs 8172 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mayur Makadia, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Paresh Deshpande, Dr : Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

Gains of Business’. Correspondingly, it would have been adjusted from block of assets in terms of Section 45(1A) adjusted from block of assets in terms of Section 45(1A) adjusted from block of assets in terms of Section 45(1A) read with Section 50 of the Act read with Section 50 of the Act and offered as ‘Capital

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains amounting to Rs.22,49,01,802/- being compensation on acquisition of land in AY 2016-2017 and taxing the interest of Rs 44,29,98,502/- u/s 56(2)(viii) in AY 2016-2017 being interest on delay in payment of compensation on acquisition of land without appreciating that the compensation and the consequential interest is not taxable

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains amounting to Rs.22,49,01,802/- being compensation on acquisition of land in AY 2016-2017 and taxing the interest of Rs 44,29,98,502/- u/s 56(2)(viii) in AY 2016-2017 being interest on delay in payment of compensation on acquisition of land without appreciating that the compensation and the consequential interest is not taxable

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. NANIKRAM MENGHRAJ TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriito V/S. Nanikram Menghraj Trust Room No.618, Mtnl बनाम 113, 114 Navjivan, Building, Cumbala Hill, Commercial Building No.3, Peddar Road, Lamington Road, Maharashtra-400026 Mumbai Central, Maharashtra-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatn2215N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

capital gains when the assessee neither purchased a new asset as required by section 11(1A) nor fully utilised the capital

SUNBEAM MONOCHEM P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (A)-8, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.624/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Sunbeam Monochem Pvt. बिधम/ Pcit-8 Ltd. Room No. 611, 6Th Floor, Vs. 201/B, Runwal & Omkar Aayakar Bhavan, Esquare, Opp Sion Maharshi Karve Road, Chunabhatti Signal, Eastern Mumbai-400020. Express Highway, Sion East, Mumbai-400022. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs8172P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 26.02.2021 For Assessment Year 2015- 16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 45(1A) of the Act, which provided that any money received from insurance due to damage or destruction to capital assets would be taxable by way of capital gains

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

capital gain. Under the facts and circumstances and considering the discussions referred above, the addition of Rs. 2.32 crore is not warranted, Ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed. We find the various new facts and submissions are emerged in the course of hearing and the agreement was filed for the first time. Therefore considering the facts, submissions

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

capital gain. Under the facts and circumstances and considering the discussions referred above, the addition of Rs. 2.32 crore is not warranted, Ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed. We find the various new facts and submissions are emerged in the course of hearing and the agreement was filed for the first time. Therefore considering the facts, submissions

NATWAR LAL DAGA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

capital gains by manipulation in the market price of the shares of the company is evident on perusal of the daily trade records of the scrip. Page No. | 14 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 24. Assessing Officer observed that Mr R.K. Kedia admitted that Rander Corporation Ltd and DhenuBuildcon Infra

NATWAR LAL GALA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

capital gains by manipulation in the market price of the shares of the company is evident on perusal of the daily trade records of the scrip. Page No. | 14 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 24. Assessing Officer observed that Mr R.K. Kedia admitted that Rander Corporation Ltd and DhenuBuildcon Infra

NATWAR LAL DAGA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

capital gains by manipulation in the market price of the shares of the company is evident on perusal of the daily trade records of the scrip. Page No. | 14 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 24. Assessing Officer observed that Mr R.K. Kedia admitted that Rander Corporation Ltd and DhenuBuildcon Infra

NATWAR LAL GALA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-52, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

capital gains by manipulation in the market price of the shares of the company is evident on perusal of the daily trade records of the scrip. Page No. | 14 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga 24. Assessing Officer observed that Mr R.K. Kedia admitted that Rander Corporation Ltd and DhenuBuildcon Infra

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1A) for the differential tax of 9%. Before the FAA the assessee raised the contention that section 194IC is not applicable to the assessee and also that the assessee is covered under the proviso to section 201(1). The assessee furnished the details of Capital Gain

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1A) for the differential tax of 9%. Before the FAA the assessee raised the contention that section 194IC is not applicable to the assessee and also that the assessee is covered under the proviso to section 201(1). The assessee furnished the details of Capital Gain

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1A) for the differential tax of 9%. Before the FAA the assessee raised the contention that section 194IC is not applicable to the assessee and also that the assessee is covered under the proviso to section 201(1). The assessee furnished the details of Capital Gain

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1A) for the differential tax of 9%. Before the FAA the assessee raised the contention that section 194IC is not applicable to the assessee and also that the assessee is covered under the proviso to section 201(1). The assessee furnished the details of Capital Gain