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).

Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) also made addition of INR.6,30,873/- holding the same to be Long Term 2 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Capital Gains

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

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

x) of the Act, which explicitly\nexclude "stock in trade” from the meaning of the “property” and\ntherefore the legislative intent was not to include shares held as\n"stock in trade” for all types of Assessee.\n49. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. submitted that drawing upon\nthe definition of “property" given in section 56(2

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

X'Trium Building, Sir Mathuradas\nVasanji Road, Chakala MIDC S.O.\nMumbai - 400059.\nVs.\nACIT(IT), Circle (2)(3)(1)\nKautilya Bhavan, G Block, BKC,\nBandra East, Mumbai – 400051.\nPAN/GIR No. AABCI3188F\n(Assessee)\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nRespondent by\nDate of Hearing\nDate of Pronouncement\n:\n:\n:\nShri. Devendra Jain\nShri. Krishna Kumar (SR. DR.)\n09.12.2024\n07.03.2025\nORDER

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

56(2)(x)(b) of the Act is not applicable to the present case. Further, reliance on the definition of the term “transfer” as provided in section 2(47) of the Act is immaterial in the instant case as no addition on account of capital gains

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

56(2)(x)(b)(B)(ii) of the Act was increased to 10% with effect from 01/04/2021 and was, therefore, not applicable to the Assessment Year 2018-19 before us. 8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the Learned Departmental Representative. However, we find that identical contentions raised by the Revenue stands rejected by the Mumbai

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) :

x) of the Section 56(2) by the P a g e | 48 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.4.2018. Thus, it is neither taxable u/s. 56(1) nor 56(2)(viib). 31. In so far as, whether the receipt of shares at nil consideration can construed as business

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) :

x) of the Section 56(2) by the P a g e | 48 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 01.4.2018. Thus, it is neither taxable u/s. 56(1) nor 56(2)(viib). 31. In so far as, whether the receipt of shares at nil consideration can construed as business

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

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act, inter alia, provides that where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after 1st April, 2017, any immovable property, for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp

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

56(2)(x) of the Act and ultimately allowed the leverage granted by the statue, even by considering 10% as subsequently increased by the Statute, by observing and holding as under: “9. Before dealing with the substantive issue, it is necessary to look into the relevant statutory provisions. By the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 section 50C was introduced

SULOCHANA SAIJAN MODI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

section 56(2)(x)(b) have been ignored. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the judgement of Apex Court in case of Balbir Singh Maina in as much as * The relied decision relates to Income from Capital Gain

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. VARUN JAISINGH ASHER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains and cannot be brought to tax under the residuary provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. In 12 ITA No. 8251/Mum/2025

ZULEKHA HAJI ATTARWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(1), LALBAUG

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the\nassessee are dismissed

Capital Gain\nhas been correctly disallowed by the AO in consideration of the provisions\nas per Section 2(42A).\n\n5.3 On Applicability of Section 56(2)(x

SMT. PINKI CHETAN SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gain arising from sale of property, it is date of allotment of property which is relevant for purpose of computing holding period and not date of registration of conveyance deed f) Mohd. Ilyas Ansari v. ITO-23(2)(3),Mumbai [ITA No. 6174/M/2017dtd. 06/11/2020, 186 ITD 407 (Mumbai - Trib.)] Where Assessing Officer mechanically applied provisions of section 56(2

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

section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) was applicable, and the excess amount exceeds Rs. 50,000/, the provision is clearly attracted. iii. Distinction from Cited Case Laws The assessee has relied u from the present facts: pon the following cases, which I find are distinguishable Regarding DCIT vs Vembu Vaidyanathan: This case dealt with capital gains

MEENA ARJUN NARANG,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 56(2)(x)(b) as observed herein above would be the date of allotment i.e. 11.12.2010 and the date of registration of agreement (03.11.2017). Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition in present matter and re-compute the capital gain

MR. RAKESH GOVINDCHAND MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

56(1). . . . . (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income- tax under any of the head "Income from other sources", namely- (i) and (ii) ** ** ** (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

X of the Act stands concluded by the order in Vodafone Act stands concluded by the order in Vodafone-III. III. 25. But we have examined the issue afresh. The word income for 25. But we have examined the issue afresh. The word income for 25. But we have examined the issue afresh. The word income for the purpose