ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act of Property Act, the capital gain arises in the capital gain arises in AY 2009-10. He also

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

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even based on part performance of the contract. We find that the ld CITA had also observed that possession was not handed over to the Developer by the assessee society. This fact was not controverted by the revenue before us. Accordingly, there cannot be any incidence of capital gains

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

gains on the commercial exploitation of the land. iv) Under the circumstances, the capital asset being land, was converted into Stock-in – Trade. Mr. Kishore Manusukhani was mandated to commence the development process after obtaining possession of the land from the Ministry of Defence v) Mr. Kishore Manusukhani thereafter started making all efforts to obtain vacant possession of the land

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

gains on the commercial exploitation of the land. iv) Under the circumstances, the capital asset being land, was converted into Stock-in – Trade. Mr. Kishore Manusukhani was mandated to commence the development process after obtaining possession of the land from the Ministry of Defense v) Mr. Kishore Manusukhani thereafter started making all efforts to obtain vacant possession of the land

MR.LEMES E. D'SOUZA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 21(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5802/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10) Mr. Lemes E. D’ Souza, Ito – Ward 21(3)(3), बनाम/ Alk Bricks Factory Room No. 507, 5 Th Floor, V. Company, C-11, Pratyakshakar Behind Sakinaka, Bhavan, Motor Training School, B.K.C. Bandra, Opp. Janseva Decoilers, Mumbai – 400 051. Sakinaka, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadpd7091 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

capital gains tax, we have to take similar approach in deciding the issue in hand i.e. the claim of assessee for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act because this is exactly similar to section 54E, 54B or 54EAor EB of the Act. In the present case before us, admittedly assessee received part payments after execution of agreement to sale

MATOSHREE REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 18(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 makes it mandatory for registration of all documents in relation to immovable property. Therefore, from the above legal position it is very clear that for transfer of an immovable property, there 25 Matoshree should be an agreement in writing signed by the transferor and transferee and the same should be registered under

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) :

capital gain" 19. The undisputed facts are that the Assessee entered into an MOU dated 14.07.2006 with M/s Commercial Explosives (India Ltd.), the original vendor of the land at Mihan, Nagpur. As per the terms of the said MOU, the Assessee was required to pay an amount of Rs.25 croresto purchase the said land. A copy of the said

DRAUPADIBAI GAJANAN BHOIR,KALYAN vs. ITO WD3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

section 2(47) rws 53A has taken place giving rise to long term capital gain. ITAs No.4241-4245/Mum/2018 The plea that

PRATIBHA GAJANAN BHOIR,KALYAN vs. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

section 2(47) rws 53A has taken place giving rise to long term capital gain. ITAs No.4241-4245/Mum/2018 The plea that

PRAMILA GAJANAN BHOIR,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

section 2(47) rws 53A has taken place giving rise to long term capital gain. ITAs No.4241-4245/Mum/2018 The plea that

PRAKASH GAJANAN BHOIR,THANE vs. ITO WD- 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

section 2(47) rws 53A has taken place giving rise to long term capital gain. ITAs No.4241-4245/Mum/2018 The plea that

PRADEEP GAJANAN BHOIR,THANE vs. ITO WD- 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

section 2(47) rws 53A has taken place giving rise to long term capital gain. ITAs No.4241-4245/Mum/2018 The plea that

SHEHAB S BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(3)(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3171/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shehab S.Bohra Income Tax Officer 20(3)(3) Flat No. 1202, 12Th Floor Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Yash Height Chsl Parel Nesbit Road Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Near Union Bank Of India Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the possession was not handed over and the properties were under complete control of the assessee and the assessee received mere advance payments, no transfer took place and hence, no capital gains

ITO 20(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. SHEHAB SULTAN BOHRA, MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3171/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shehab S.Bohra Income Tax Officer 20(3)(3) Flat No. 1202, 12Th Floor Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Yash Height Chsl Parel Nesbit Road Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Near Union Bank Of India Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the possession was not handed over and the properties were under complete control of the assessee and the assessee received mere advance payments, no transfer took place and hence, no capital gains

ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 40, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

gain tax to the extent of relinquishment of his rights in the assets of the erstwhile firm in favour of the four partners of the reconstituted firm. It is the correctness of this finding, which is before us. 7. The assessee are sought to be taxed under Section 45(1) of the Act on the ground that there

SUPERMAX PERSONAL CARE P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI

gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. xxx xxx xxx” Section 2(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,- (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset ; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or (iii) the compulsory acquisition thereof under

AKSHAY JANAK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC, DELHI

gains arising transfer of capital was exempt under Section 54F of the Act as the Appellant had purchases a residential property within a period of one year before the sale of the Capital Asset. The return for the Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein disclosure was made to this effect was processed under Section

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR. - 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Circle 7(1), Aayakar Bhavan Healthcare Ltd.,) Mumbai - 400020 (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Circle 7(1), Aayakar Ltd.,) Bhavan (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal India Mumbai - 400020 Ltd.,) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No.Aaacn4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Joshi Revenue By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 29/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02 /2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M): These Cross Appeals In Ita Nos.3927/Mum/2006 & 4066/Mum/2006 For A.Y.2002-03 Arises Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)Xix/It-104/05-06 Dated 31/03/2006 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 31/03/2005 By The Ld. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 7(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). M/S. Piramal Enterprises Ltd.

Capital Gains the above has been considered only to the extent of the possession handed over in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 53A