M/S MASCOT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(2)(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mascot Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer 2(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Indian Mercantile Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chambers, 14R, Kamani Marg, Mumbai-400020. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaccm 6531 H Appellant Respondent

capital gain assessed invoking section 50C of the Act. respect of capital gain assessed invoking section 50C of the Act. respect

GOBINDRAM JAGDISH KAKWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain and accordingly, he proceeded to adopt the value as per section 50C of the Act and also he rejected

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

gains addition, the Tribunal held that the lands sold were agricultural lands, situated beyond 8 km from the municipal limits (based on physical measurement and Google Maps evidence), and therefore not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act. The Revenue's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ANILKUMAR JAGDISHRAJ SETH , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth, 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Flat No. 1201, Jeevan Satya Co-Op. Vs. Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Housing Society, 15Th Road, Plot No. Mumbai-400012. 411, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aobps 8150 E Appellant Respondent

section 50C of the Act for substituting sale consideration shown by the assessee by the value as per stamp sale consideration shown by the assessee by the value as per stamp sale consideration shown by the assessee by the value as per stamp duty while computing duty while computing income under the head capital gain

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

50C on Sale of\ndepreciable immovable property\n11. It is argued that the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the application of\nsection 50C/43CA to capital assets covered by section 50 (depreciable\nassets) and in computing the capital gains

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

50C on Sale of\ndepreciable immovable property\n11. It is argued that the ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the application of\nsection 50C/43CA to capital assets covered by section 50 (depreciable\nassets) and in computing the capital gains

AXIA INFOSERVE LLP,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

50C is explained in Circular 8 of 2018 titled Explanatory Notes to the provisions of The Finance Act 2018 as under : 16. Rationalization of section 43CA, section SOC and section 56 Page No. | 14 Axia Infoserve LLP 16.1 Before amendment by the Act, for computing income from business profits (section 43CA), capital gains

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

50C of the Act for the purpose of computing the capital gain on sale of capital assets. Similarly, while computing the profits and gains of the business, the legislature has introduced a legal fiction under section

NUTRELA MARKETING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Capital Gains, in the hands of the seller u/s 48 of the Act. 6.1. In order to appreciate the rival contentions on this issue, it would be apt to consider the prescription of sub-section (1) of section 50C

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Capital Gain (LTCG) arising out of transfer of 1/3rd share in ancestral leasehold property. The assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F towards purchase of tenancy rights and purchase of 3 Kenneth M. Misquitta land. The assessee also claimed deduction under section 54EC of the Act towards investment in eligible Bonds. The Assessing Officer (AO) while completing the assessment making

VANRAJ RANCHHODDAS MERCHANT (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR HARSHIT MERCHANT),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

50C, in accordance with settled judicial\nprinciples.\n11. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and\ndirected the Assessing Officer to adopt Rs.80,04,300/- as the full\nvalue of consideration for computing long-term capital gains,\ninstead of Rs.1,11,07,000/-, and to recompute the capital gains\nafter allowing exemption under section

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 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961("Act") would be applicable in computing capital gains on sale of land

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 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961("Act") would be applicable in computing capital gains on sale of land

MUKESH VAIKUNTHLAL MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain by applying the section 50C Assessment Year 2011-2012 without appreciating the facts of the case. The appellant

AAESHKA RIDDHI REALTY,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC - ITO-19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 50C is. In terms of this provision, if the property is sold below the stamp duty valuation rate, which is often called circle rate, this stamp duty valuation report is assumed as sale consideration for the property in question, and, accordingly, capital gains

TUSHAR ENTERPRISES,GOREGAON EAST, MUMBAI vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, , KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailtushar Enterprises, 2-A/401-402 Dheeraj Valley, Mohan Gokhale Road, Saibaba Complex, Goregaon East, Mumbai ............... Appellant Maharahstra - 400063 Pan : Aaaft1242R V/S Income Tax Officer, ……………… Respondent Ward – 41(4)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.Dr

section 50C of the Act should be assessed as on 31.03.2004 since the sale consideration got fixed on 05.02.2004, i.e. the date of execution of MOU. As the assessee has raised objections regarding the stamp value, the matter was referred to the DVO for 4 the valuation of the property. The DVO vide its report dated 19.12.2016 valued the property

MURTUZA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee are partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes, whereas ground no.3 stands dismissed

50C of the Act for the purpose of\ncapital gain at Rs. 86,00,000/- and a deduction was claimed under section 48 of\nthe Act for Rs. 83,62,976/- as cost of improvement with indexation, thus Long\nTerm Capital

RAOUL THACKERSEY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gain arising in case of a seller of immovable property as per the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act. Without