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

gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1),exceeds(b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised by the assessee

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

gain is taxable in the year under consideration. 11. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the meaning of the term “transfer”, which is defined under section 2(47) of the Act, in relation to the capital asset. Section 2(47) of the Act reads as follows: - “"transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

capital gains, and not the date of payment or possession. The cost of acquisition was to be considered as the amount paid for conversion of tenancy rights to ownership, i.e., Rs. 1,50,000/-, and not the market value on the date of acquisition.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "147", "50C", "2(47)", "139(1)", "45", "53A

MR GAJANAN PARSHURAM KHISMATRAO,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(2), KALYAN

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains in the hands of the assessee. 10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the meaning of the term „transfer’, which is defined in section 2(47) of the Act, in relation to a capital asset. Section 2(47) of the Act reads as under: “(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange

MR. ANTHONY P LEWIS,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22(1)(1), MUMBAI

Section 53A of the TPA and hence, the computation of Long Term Capital Gains of INR 49,50,11,429/- and the addition

PARVINCHAND NARINDERNATH SEHGAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

capital gain u/s 50 of the Act. 3. We noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.31.00 lakhs on the reasoning that he has acquired a shop falling within the same blocm. The controversy is with regard to the above said claim for deduction of Rs.31.00 lakhs towards cost of new asset acquired by the assessee. The facts relating

ANIL PANNALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

capital gains computation and holding period determination, not with section 56(2)(x) applicability. 3. The law has evolved significantly since 1986/1993, and the introduction of section 56(2)(x) in 2017 has created a different legal framework for taxing property transactions. 4. Analysis of First Proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) The assessee has argued that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD , MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

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

capital gain under section 48. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- as mere security deposit and not a part of the consideration, despite evidence that the agreement had commercial substance and irrevocable rights were transferred to the developer during the year under

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

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

capital gain under section 48. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- as mere security deposit and not a part of the consideration, despite evidence that the agreement had commercial substance and irrevocable rights were transferred to the developer during the year under

SONALI HARSHAL GAVANDALKAR,THANE vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act and consequently sec 2(47) of the IT Act would apply. Thus, the transfer of capital assets is recognized and the capital gains calculations under provisions of section

SUVARNA CHANDRAKANT BOJANE ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Suvarna Chandrakant Bhojane Ito 42(3)(4) Flat No. 401, 4Th Floor Kautilya Bhavan Wadhwa Group, Boulevard-3 Vs. Mumbai. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar West Mumbai-400 086. Pan : Agipb2777K Appellant Respondent

capital gains tax when the land is given to the builder, M/s. B.G. Sovani Associates, for development purposes. In the grounds of appeal before the ITAT, the appellant has stated that there is no transfer of property as per section 53A

SANJAY BABAN VAITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10

53A of the Transfer of Property Act were not fulfilled. not fulfilled. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not considering

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RISHABRAJ INFRA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 3246/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2015-16) Acit, C.Circle -2(1), Vs. Rishabraj Infrapvtltd., Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 212, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Bldg No. 3, Hari Om Mumbai – 400020. Plaza, Mg Road, Boravali (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcv2975P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Riddhi Mishra.Dr Revenue By : Mr.Karan Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

53A of the Act, an assessment has to be made in relation to the search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during the search or requisition. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A

ZARIR RUSTOM JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 17(3)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Mr. Zarir Rustom Joshi, Income Tax Officer, 26, Heera Meher, 108, Ward -17(3)(5) Room No.116, 1St Floor, Wood House Road, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai – 400 005 Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aahpj9575G (Appellant) : (Respondent)

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are not fulfilled. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in holding that since the name of the Appellant was appearing in the "7/12 Extract" in the year

BHAVANA BABAN VAITY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not satisfied and hence the transaction cannot fall within the scope of deemed transfer u/s. 2(47)(v).” on the ground that the same is a legal ground and could not be raised due to inadvertence on the part of the tax advisor of the assessee. Keeping in view the mandate

ANAND KEDARNATH SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer of the impugned property took place in the year 2002 and therefore the provisions of section 50C for consideration of the market value of the property at the time of registration/executing the sale deed would not be applicable. Even otherwise if the provisions of section

BALAJEE INFRATECH & CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. New sub-clauses (v) and (v) have been inserted in section 2(47) to prevent avoidance 11 Balajee Infratech & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., of capital gains

SHREE SAI CONSTRUCTIONS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1 , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

capital gain, he brought the same to tax. 7. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions by passing an ex parte order without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. Before us, the learned counsel explained that under the JDA, the assessee was to receive (i) monetary consideration of ₹3,00,00,000/-, which was received