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

viii) any work of art; or (ix) bullion; 11. Therefore, as per section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, if any person receives any immovable property from any person or persons on or after 01/04/2017 for consideration, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration shall be considered as its income from other sources

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

viii) As per the provisions of sub-section 2(29AA) r.w.ss.2(42A) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961, the Immovable Property is a Long Term Capital Asset with period\nof holding enumerated from F.Y. 2017-18 for indexation purposes when the\nownership and possession was acquired.\n5. 5. Directions of the DRP:\nIn view of the above discussion

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

viii) any work of art; or\n(ix) bullion;\n16. At the outset, it is evident that the aforesaid definition is restricted for\nthe purpose of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. We find that in JCIT v/s Saheli\nLeasing & Industries Ltd., reported in [2010] 324 ITR 170, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court observed as follows

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

56,899 and ₹ 73,722 of all these properties. Accordingly two additions were made to the total income of the assessee (1) undisclosed income of ₹ 198,000 and {2} income from property of ₹ 203,727/–. Total income was determined at ₹ 8,298,197/–. 07. For assessment year 2011 – 12, as assessee was found to be owner of all the four

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

56, Mumbai filed by the Bank and hence do not come within the purview of revision under section 263. We reiterate that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial and the proceedings under section 263 ought to be dropped.” ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 07. The learned PCIT after considering

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMAGRA WEALTHMAX PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

viii. Thus, the claim of the assessee is that neither the above sum is taxable u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act and nor u/s.41(1) of the Act. ix. The assessee also submitted that even otherwise the assets acquired by the assessee does not fall within the meaning of the term property and, therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

viii. The learned Assessing Officer in assessment order relied upon statement of operators. According to him in said statement operators has certified that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries but has not mentioned names of persons to whom he has provided the said entries. Page No. 32 Udayan Grover ix. The learned Assessing Officer failed to provide copy

JT. CIT (OSD) ,CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. VERITAS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

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

2(22)(e) of the Act which is taxable in his hands and no adjudication on this aspect has been made in the appellate order?” 4. Ground no. 1 of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the AO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income

VERITAS (INDIA) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 5(1), MUMBAI

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

2(22)(e) of the Act which is taxable in his hands and no adjudication on this aspect has been made in the appellate order?” 4. Ground no. 1 of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the AO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income

RITA SUNIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

viii. CIT V Hilla J B Wadia dated 2/3/1993 [ Bom] ix. CIT V J B Subramaniyam IT 4 of 1993 [ Kar] 017. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer submitting that assessee has acquired the right to purchase the above flat on the date of purchase agreement which is 25/7/2009. The date of possession

SUNIL AMRITLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

viii. CIT V Hilla J B Wadia dated 2/3/1993 [ Bom] ix. CIT V J B Subramaniyam IT 4 of 1993 [ Kar] 017. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer submitting that assessee has acquired the right to purchase the above flat on the date of purchase agreement which is 25/7/2009. The date of possession

PERCIVAL JOSEPH PEREIRA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains amounting to Rs.22,49,01,802/- being compensation on acquisition of land in AY 2016-2017 and taxing the interest of Rs 44,29,98,502/- u/s 56(2)(viii) in AY 2016-2017 being interest on delay in payment of compensation on acquisition of land without appreciating that the compensation and the consequential interest is not taxable