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

ACIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGALPRABHAT GUMANMAL LODHA , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

56(2)(vii)(ii) of the Act is concerned,\nthe undisputed fact is that the difference between the agreement value\nand stamp value is much less than 10%. Therefore, the decision of the\nCo-ordinate Bench in the case of Joseph Mudaliar vs. DCIT [2021] 130\ntaxmann.com 250 (Mumbai-Trib.), squarely applies. The relevant findings\nread as under

GAURAV RAJESH DESAI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -3(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 50C(2)/(3) and corresponding rules for 56(2)(vii)(b)). The assessee was given opportunity to be heard by the DVO as well, as per standard procedure (though he may not have availed it actively). The CIT(A) explicitly found that "from the DVO's report itself it is evident that he was well aware of the nature

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

capital asset of the recipient and therefore would not apply to\nstock-in-trade, raw material and consumable stores of any business of\nsuch recipient.\n53. As we have observed above that the provisions of section\n56(2)(vii) of the Act were not covering the cases of the firm or a\ncompany (not being a company in which

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

56(2)(vii)(ii) of the Act is concerned, the undisputed fact is that the difference between the agreement value and stamp value is much less than 10%. Therefore, the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Joseph Mudaliar vs. DCIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 250 (Mumbai-Trib.), squarely applies. The relevant findings read as under:- “9. Before

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

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

capital gains as per section 45, and gifts received as per section 56(2)(v),(vi),(vii) etc. are included

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

capital gains as per section 45, and gifts received as per section 56(2)(v),(vi),(vii) etc. are included

MANJULA HIMMATLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD-20(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

section 56(2)(vii)(b)\n(e) Dy. CIT-5(3)(1) vs. Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy ITA No. 3204\n&3316/M/2016 dtd. 30/07/2018(Mum.) (Trib.)\nIn order to determine taxability of capital gain

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).

Capital Gain (LTCG) of INR.79,79,873/- in respect of Property Sold out of total LTCG of INR.1,99,49,684/- claiming to be 40% owner of Property Sold. The Assessee had taken stamp duty value of Property Sold at INR.2,51,03,388/-. The CIT(A) observed that the stamp duty value of Property Sold was INR.2

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,643 equity shares acquired over a period above, has been transferred within the meaning of Sec. 2(47) of the Income Tax\nAct, upon a reduction of Capital carried out by TTSL during the year. The Supreme Court. in 228/TR/103 and 236/TR/327 have held that a reduction of Capital constitutes transfer Accordingly, the capital gains have been\ncomputed

CHANDARANI N.GOYAL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gains on the entire transaction. Accordingly, vide impugned order, the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.25 lakh received by the assessee as deposit is taxable in the hands of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital of holding company. Therefore, this is a fit case where in substance over form is to be looked which clearly proves that the entire transaction is carried out to evade tax. Further, for the purpose of computation of tax liability section 56(2)(vii) (c) is invoked. Accordingly, the differential amount between total FMV of Shares of M/s. Ratangiri

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE, THANE vs. NAKUL MARKHEDKAR, THANE

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital of holding company. Therefore, this is a fit case where in substance over form is to be looked which clearly proves that the entire transaction is carried out to evade tax. Further, for the purpose of computation of tax liability section 56(2)(vii) (c) is invoked. Accordingly, the differential amount between total FMV of Shares of M/s. Ratangiri

SUKHPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia (International Tax) Ward 6/24, Milan Building, 1(1)(1), 87, Tardeo Road, Room No.1817A, 18 Th Vs. Opp. Tardeo A C Market, Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 034 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azupa6884D Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2024 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

56,55,124.48 6,64,567.87 Now the above capital gain needs to reconvertinto Indian 033. Currency. Rule 115 of The Income tax Rules 1962 provides that The rate of exchange for the calculation of the value in rupees of any income accruing or arising or deemed to accrue or arise to the assessee in foreign currency or received

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NARENDRA GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. (e) The Assessing Officer also held the cash found at the The Assessing Officer also held the cash found at the The Assessing Officer also held the cash found at the residence of residence of residence of the the the assessee assessee assessee amounting amounting to amounting to to Rs.2,78,000/- Rs.2

SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

2) of Section 56(vii)(b) of the Act is applicable in the facts of this case. It was brought to my notice that the assessee has received allotment letter for the flat under consideration on 25.11.2011 and has paid part- consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque on 15.11.2011. In this factual background, my attention was drawn

MR. BIPINCHANDRA SHANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23 (1) (6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

vii) of the Act, the term “immovable property” has been defined to mean land or building or both. In our view, it will not cover the improvement of right which is already held by the assessee. Therefore, from the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is discernible that receipt of immovable property for the purpose