MRS. URMILA JAGDISH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 33(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle 33(3), Mrs. Urmila Jagdish Bandra Kurla Mehta Complex, Bandra (E), 1604, E-Wing, Agarwal Vs. Mmbai-400 051 Residency, Shankar Lane, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400 067 Pan/Gir No. Adipm5257E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

section 54 and assessed the gains as short-term capital gains. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that she had received possession of the redeveloped flat in the year 2010 and, therefore, the holding period exceeded 36 months, rendering the gains as long-term

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain accrued on the sale of immovable property. These submissions were made in compliance with Rule 46A which were admitted and accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). In this respect a remand report was called from the Ld. Assessing Officer which was submitted by him on 10.02.2020. In the remand report, though the Ld. Assessing Officer had objected

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

capital gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries illegally seized from the Appellants premises and uncorroborated evidence .The Appellants pray that the same be deleted. 4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act be deleted

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

capital gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries illegally seized from the Appellants premises and uncorroborated evidence .The Appellants pray that the same be deleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234B and 234C

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries\nillegally seized from the Appellants premises and\nuncorroborated evidence. The Appellants pray that the same be\ndeleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under sections 234B of\nthe Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under sections\n234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced

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

section 50B considering the legal framework as well as the basic principle that capital gain is always a portion of sale consideration, and, therefore, portion can never be higher than the whole. Further, I agree with the appellant that the sale consideration as agreed between parties is to be considered for computing capital gains. In light of the fact that

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

section 50B considering the legal framework as well as the basic principle that capital gain is always a portion of sale consideration, and, therefore, portion can never be higher than the whole. Further, I agree with the appellant that the sale consideration as agreed between parties is to be considered for computing capital gains. In light of the fact that

NISHITA VIJAY MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)4, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

Capital Gain Account Scheme and therefore has complied with the provisions of section 54F. Therefore, in the instant case, the addition is unwarranted in Asst. Year 2017-18. Hence, the ground is noted as allowed. 4. On the issue of indexation the Ld. CIT(A) held that the cost of acquisition of such shares is to be determined

ITO 19.2.4, MUMBAI vs. NISHITA VIJAY MEHTA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

Capital Gain Account Scheme and therefore has complied with the provisions of section 54F. Therefore, in the instant case, the addition is unwarranted in Asst. Year 2017-18. Hence, the ground is noted as allowed. 4. On the issue of indexation the Ld. CIT(A) held that the cost of acquisition of such shares is to be determined

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE CIT (A), NFACE INC TX DEPT, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

capital gains, the section under which the exemption claim is wrongly quoted, etc. The Ld.DR, therefore submitted that there are more than one anomaly pertaining to the transaction and therefore the lower authorities were correct in treating the entire transaction as suspicious and accordingly assessing the same under section 68 of the Act. 13. We heard the parties and perused

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries\nillegally seized from the Appellants premises and\nuncorroborated evidence. The Appellants pray that the same be\ndeleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under sections 234B of\nthe Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under sections\n234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries\nillegally seized from the Appellants premises and\nuncorroborated evidence. The Appellants pray that the same be\ndeleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under sections 234B of\nthe Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under sections\n234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries\nillegally seized from the Appellants premises and\nuncorroborated evidence. The Appellants pray that the same be\ndeleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under sections 234B of\nthe Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under sections\n234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries\nillegally seized from the Appellants premises and\nuncorroborated evidence. The Appellants pray that the same be\ndeleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under sections 234B of\nthe Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under sections\n234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries\nillegally seized from the Appellants premises and\nuncorroborated evidence. The Appellants pray that the same be\ndeleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under sections 234B of\nthe Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under sections\n234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced

HAYWARD SYNTHETICS P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 (1) (1), MUMBAI

In the result, present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 2(14) of the Act which was transferred after expiry of 36 months and therefore, the Appellant was entitled to claim benefit of long terms capital gains. Our attention was also invited to the application for furnishing additional evidence, dated 27/02/2024, filed by the Appellant and it was submitted that the Appellant was bringing on record various demand letters

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries\nillegally seized from the Appellants premises and\nuncorroborated evidence. The Appellants pray that the same be\ndeleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under sections 234B of\nthe Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under sections\n234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

gains purely on the basis of entries in the diaries\nillegally seized from the Appellants premises and\nuncorroborated evidence. The Appellants pray that the same be\ndeleted.\n\n4. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under sections 234B of\nthe Act. The Appellants prays that the interest under sections\n234B of the Act be deleted or consequentially reduced