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)

section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bona fide cases of small variations between the stated sale consideration vis- àvis stamp duty valuation, out of the scope of adjustments contemplated in the computation of capital gains

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

capital gain. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition in respect of section 50C of the Act addition in respect of section 50C

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

1) was incorrect and that opportunity to cross-examine parties was not given. A further ground related to Long Term Capital Gains on the sale of depreciable immovable property invoking Section 50C

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. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the said addition On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the said addition On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the said addition which was made invoking section 50C of the Act. Aggrieved, the which was made invoking section 50C

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

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used by the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family for agricultural purposes (hereinafter referred

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

capital gains as neither the provisions of section 50 or 50C of the Act were applicable to the facts of the case. The Block of assets never ceased to operate. Therefore, the provisions of section 50(1

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

GLORY SHIPMANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

gain. By Finance Act, 2018, the third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act was introduced to the statute with effect from 1-4-2019, which reads as under:- '50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital

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(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations between the stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation, out of the scope of adjustments contemplated in the computation of 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

Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations between the stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation, out of the scope of adjustments contemplated in the computation of 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

capital gain arising from the said transfer by adopting the\nstamp duty valuation. We, therefore, answer the question referred to this\nspecial bench in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the\nassesse.\"\n13.2We find that the hon'ble Special Bench while interpreting the\nsections 50 and 50C of the Act w.r.t. applicability in respect of depreciable

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

HBS VIEW PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

gain. By Finance Act, 2018, the I.T.A. No. 2246/Mum/2025 6 third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act was introduced to the statute with effect from 1-4-2019, which reads as under:- '50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital

CHANDRA LALIT SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Chandra Lalit Sanghvi, Income Tax Officer, 25-26, 6Th Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), Western Court Building, Vs. Piramal Chamber, 83, Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400012. Marine Drive, Mumbai-400002. Pan : Acips3131J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations between the stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation, out of the scope of adjustments contemplated in the computation of capital gains

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 was squarely\napplicable. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed long-\nterm capital gains at Rs.51,37,000/- after allowing exemption\nunder section 54F of Rs.31,70,000/-, and completed the\nassessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act.\nPenalty proceedings under section 271(1

BHUSHAN VASANT PARELKAR,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

Capital Gains. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Ld. AO of not allowing the exemption w/s 54F for investment in new property. 3. In the present appeal, essentially the issue to be decided is on legal ground, challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 on account of being barred by limitation and consequent reassessment order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI vs. GAURAV INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

capital gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. (emphasis supplied) 14. The ratio laid down in the above decision is that the rational for holding newly inserted proviso to sub-section (1) to section 50C

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)

1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the honorable CIT(A) has erred and is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 84,27,058/- made by the learned AO under the head of Long Term Capital Gain by applying the section 50C