ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides course, the law provides, under section 50C(2

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides course, the law provides, under section 50C(2

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

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

Capital Gains on the sale of depreciable immovable property invoking Section 50C.", "held": "The Tribunal considered the grounds raised by the assessee and the Revenue. Grounds 1, 2

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 asset, being land or building or both, is less than

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 As such, I humbly plead that the valuation adopted by the AO of Rs.55,32,000 being the fair market value of the property as determined by the DVO be replaced by the actual sale consideration of Rs. 52 50,000 and the long term capital gains be calculated by taking the sale value

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

capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2

CHERIE TANDON SALDAHNA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

50C and sub-section (15) of\nsection 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value\nof such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation\nof capital asset under those sections;\"\n8. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, where\nany

KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

2 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Capital Gains arising from sale of immovable property (i.e. Office No.KRA-103, Kempa Plaza, Malad, Mumbai) invoking the provisions contained in Section 50C

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

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) or 50(2

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 asset, being land or building

MR. SURESH SHANTILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

gain. By Finance Act, 2018, the third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act was introduced to the statute with effect from 01-04-2019, which reads as under:- “50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than

SUJATA PRAKASH JAWALE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

50C would not apply to Section 56(2)(vii). In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Clayking Minerals LLP vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] reported in 174 taxmann.com 1111, wherein the tribunal while deciding on Section 56(2)(x) which has replaced Section 56(2)(vii)(b) since October

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

2)(a) since the value assessed by the stamp\nvaluation authorities exceeded the fair market value of the property as\nshown in the approved valuer's report.He did not appreciate that Section\n50C does not apply to sale of assets forming part of Block of Assets.\nProvisions of section 50 as well a section 50C are mutually disjoint\nprovisions

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

2) of the Income Tax, 1961 (the Act) was duly served on the assessee. In the return of income the assessee has offered to tax the Long Term 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

MAIMOON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

50C of the Act, as the stamp duty value on the date of exclusion of the agreement was higher than the sale consideration, the AO computed the long-term capital gains on the sale of plot of land at Rs.41,79,538/-, and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6 8. The learned CIT(A), vide

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 ()

2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law of a capital asset, being land or building or any right in land or building, forming part of an industrial undertaking...." [emphasis supplied] 10 ITA No.3910/Mum/2010; A.Y. 2006-07 Nutrela Marketing Pvt Ltd 6.5. In section 54D(1) of the Act, the 'capital