TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

260 to 300 of the legal paperbook) explains the entire modus operandi to compute capital gains from transfer of undertaking and it is held that object of 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

gains arising on the transfer of a capital asset was available against the purchase of the first house property for the assessee's residence following sale. The assessee had no choice in this regard as held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He also argued that the fact that the petitioner had to vacate and let out the flat

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

gains arising on the transfer of a capital asset was available against the purchase of the first house property for the assessee's residence following sale. The assessee had no choice in this regard as held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He also argued that the fact that the petitioner had to vacate and let out the flat

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

capital gain of Rs. 92,66,395/- arising from sale of 837 shares of Bombino Video Private Limited, against which assessee claimed that she has invested in a new residential property valued at Rs. 91,86,156/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 54F of 1961 Act. The assessee claimed that she purchased a property at Panchgini (Mahabaleshwar) which

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREY GULERI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-16(1) Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri बनाम/ Room No.439, Aayakar Prime Channel Software Bhawan, 101, M.K. Road Communications P. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai 400 020 215, Kuber Complex New Link Road Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaapg4566H याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dilip V. Lakhani ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

gains arising on the transfer of a capital asset was available against the purchase of the first house 19 Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri property for the assessee's residence following sale. The assessee had no choice in this regard as held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He also argued that the fact that the petitioner had to vacate

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Capital gains - Exemption under section 54 Purchase of two flats - In the course of assessment proceedings, AO asked as to why exemption under section 54 in respect of one house might not be withdrawn as deduction was available in respect of only one house. Assessee had submitted that both flats were taken in the same Vile Parle, Mumbai for residential

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

section 147, of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long-term securities\n(Bogus transactions) Assessment year 2006-\n07 Assesse purchased 3000 shares of\ncompany 'T' through a stock broker These\nshares were transferred to assesses demat\naccount - However, said stock broker submitted\nbefore authorities that he was providing\naccommodation entries for taking profit

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 147, of 260 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains IN THE ITAT - Income arising from transfer

DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

capital gain, the ld. AO had not made any reference to any seized material found during the course of search to justify the said addition. Admittedly, the assessment for A.Y.2012-13 being unabated assessment, there cannot be any disturbance to the originally concluded assessment / appellate proceeding unless there is any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to such

ITO 32(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF VAIBHAV CO-OP. HSG. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Ito-32(3)(4) Vs. State Bank Of India Staff Room No.103, 1St Floor Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.8/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5324/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2011-12) State Bank Of India Vs. Ito-32(3)(4) Room No.103, 1St Floor Staff Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia Assessee By Shri Dr. P. Daniel Date Of Hearing 13/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

260 ITR 491. owever, this case is distinguishable on facts and law because the issue this case was regarding the year in which the capital gain was d the effect of insertion of clause v and clause vi in section

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

260 Section 10(38), read with section 147, of the Income- (Ahmedabad - Trib.) IN THE tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains

ACIT (PSD) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SETH INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijitdey & Shrirajesh Kumaracit (Osd)-2(3) M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Room No. 556, 5Th Floor 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2) 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Mumbai Vs. Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent

section 2(47)(b) of the Act transfer of the property took place in the financial year 2005-06, hence, the capital gain should have been taxed in A.Y. 2006-07. In this context the AO referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj DwarkadasKapaida vs. CIT 260

SETH INDUSTRIES P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(3)(2),

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

Bench: Shri Saktijitdey & Shrirajesh Kumaracit (Osd)-2(3) M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Room No. 556, 5Th Floor 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2) 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Mumbai Vs. Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent

section 2(47)(b) of the Act transfer of the property took place in the financial year 2005-06, hence, the capital gain should have been taxed in A.Y. 2006-07. In this context the AO referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj DwarkadasKapaida vs. CIT 260

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

Section 260-A of the Act, 1961.\n\n5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.\n\nReliance is also placed on the decision of Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT v. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar [130 taxmann.com 177 of 2021]: -\n\nSection 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

capital gain to the extent the consideration is paid for the purpose of a residential house. Consequently, where respondent- assessee has acquired one residential house consisting of two flats, it cannot be said the respondent assessee had purchased two residential houses. In view of the above, we find that question (e) and (f) also do not raise any substantial question

ACIT 28 (2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. M/S NEEL SIDDHI DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

260. It has been held by Apex Court that: “….The fact that the capital gains are connected within the capital assets of the business cannot make them the profit of the business. They are only deemed to be income of the previous year and not the profits or gains rising from the business during that year". g. The stand

SUNIL AMRITLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

capital gain arising on sale of flat number 1802 as per agreement dated 10/2/2011, the ITA No.4069 & 4070/MUM/2023 Sunil Amritlal Shah & Rita Sunil Shah; A. Y.2011-12 assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 of the act for purchase of new residential flat where the date of agreement to sale of the new property is 25 July 2009 but date

RITA SUNIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

capital gain arising on sale of flat number 1802 as per agreement dated 10/2/2011, the ITA No.4069 & 4070/MUM/2023 Sunil Amritlal Shah & Rita Sunil Shah; A. Y.2011-12 assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 of the act for purchase of new residential flat where the date of agreement to sale of the new property is 25 July 2009 but date