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

QUALCOMM ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX -CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

23A and 236. The Convention leaves it to the Contracting States to choose between two methods of relief i.e. the exemption method and the credit method. Further in Third class: Exclusive residence State taxation] Other items of income or capital may not be taxed in the State of source or situs; as a rule they are taxable only

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)

23A, sub section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 shall with necessary modifications apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub section (1) of section 16A of the Act”. 11. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities

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

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 Act. 32[Explanation

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

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

GOLDMAN SACHS (SINGAPORE) PTE,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAX)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 & 2021-22 both dated 15.01.2025. The common issues contended Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte. by the assessee in both these appeals pertain to the denial of carry forward of brought forward capital losses of AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee is a company incorporated

GOLDMAN SACHS (SINGAPORE) PTE,SINGAPORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAX)-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 & 2021-22 both dated 15.01.2025. The common issues contended Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte. by the assessee in both these appeals pertain to the denial of carry forward of brought forward capital losses of AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee is a company incorporated

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

GANGARAM VALLABHJI SONI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR-5(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2020-21

23A and 234B were provided as exchange of old flts no. 266 and 273 as discussed as exchange of property no deemed income have accrued to the assessee or his wife. In respect of alternative claim of the assessee that he has made investment of higher amount being the stamp duty value of the property and capital gains arising

STALWART IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15 (3) (4) , MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5752/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2016-17) Stalwart Impex Pvt. Ltd., Usha Kiran Residency, Kharwai Naka, Kharwai, Badlapur East, Thane 421 503 Pan: Aaics-4110-J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

Capital Gain declared by the assessee and computed by the Assessing Officer after considering the DVO’s valuation report. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of the land as Rs.1,10,00,000/-. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings reference was made to DVO for the valuation of property. The DVO vide report dated

AMSONS STEEL PVT LTD.,THANE vs. DCIT CIR-6(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.970/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Amsons Steel Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(1) Plot No. A/16, Wagle Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Industrial Estate, Road Road, Mumbai-400020. No.8, Thane-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4716G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Bekal Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 06.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering Fair Market Value Of The Properties As On 30.05.2013 Determined By The District Valuation Officer-1, It Deptt, Mumbai-12 Vide His Report Dated 21.02.2019 As Against Stamp Duty Value Adopted By Learned Assessing Officer Even Through Your Appellant Sold At Prevailing Market Rate At Arm’S Length Principle. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Giving The Benefit Of Curative Amendment Inserted In Section 43 Ca By Finance Act, 2018 W.E.F. 01.04.2019 & Subsequently Finance Act, 2020 W.E.F.

Capital Gain declared by the assessee and computed by the Assessing Officer after considering the DVO’s valuation report. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of the land as Rs.1,10,00,000/-. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings reference was made to DVO for the valuation of property. The DVO vide report dated

NAMITA V SAMANT,MUMBAI vs. CIT CITY II, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

capital gains’; to section 23A(1), providing an artificial dividend payout at a minimum of 60%, lest the shortfall therein

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

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital is held by the entity referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) (whether singly or taken together); (iv) a company or corporation in which the State Government has the right to appoint the majority of the directors or to control the management or policy decisions, directly or indirectly, including by virtue of its shareholding or management rights

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital is held by the entity referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) (whether singly or taken together); (iv) a company or corporation in which the State Government has the right to appoint the majority of the directors or to control the management or policy decisions, directly or indirectly, including by virtue of its shareholding or management rights

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