DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

50C amount to Rs.79,62,000/- which works out total amount to Rs.17,33,88,833/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the assessee's submission, the exemption under section 11 is considered and the entire addition is deleted. Ld. CIT(A) has considered the Proviso to section 2(15) as argued

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) -2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

50C amount to Rs.79,62,000/- which works out total amount to Rs.17,33,88,833/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the assessee’s submission, the exemption under section 11 is considered and the entire addition is deleted. Ld. CIT(A) has considered the Proviso to section 2(15) as argued

KAMALA BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

charitable trust that could run school effectively. It is further noted that the said lease was approved by the BMC and Maharashtra Government. The property records were still in the name of the assessee firm, indicating that the assessee firm did not transfer full-fledged rights and interest in the said land to the lessee. Detailed discussion in this regard

KAMALA BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(2)1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

charitable trust that could run school effectively. It is further noted that the said lease was approved by the BMC and Maharashtra Government. The property records were still in the name of the assessee firm, indicating that the assessee firm did not transfer full-fledged rights and interest in the said land to the lessee. Detailed discussion in this regard

KAMALA BROTHERS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and assessee’s appeal as well as and CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Kamala Brothers, Ito 24(2)(1) Kuber Chamber, Cts बनाम/ C-13 Bandra Kurla 141-A, Next To Cod, Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Dutt Mandir Road, Mumbai Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaafk0111D Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ito 24(2)(1) Kamala Brothers, C-13 Bandra Kurla Kuber Chamber, Cts 141- बनाम/ Complex, Bandra(E) A, Next To Cod, Dutt Vs. Mumbai Mandir Road, Malad (E) Mumbai -400097 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaafk0111D C.O. No.180/Mum/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1334/Mum/2011) Assessment Year: 2003-04

charitable trust that could run school effectively. It is further noted that the said lease was approved by the BMC and Maharashtra Government. The property records were still in the name of the assessee firm, indicating that the assessee firm did not transfer full-fledged rights and interest in the said land to the lessee. Detailed discussion in this regard

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: 63[Provided also that in case of property being referred to in the second proviso

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: 63[Provided also that in case of property being referred to in the second proviso

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: 63[Provided also that in case of property being referred to in the second proviso

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. NANIKRAM MENGHRAJ TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriito V/S. Nanikram Menghraj Trust Room No.618, Mtnl बनाम 113, 114 Navjivan, Building, Cumbala Hill, Commercial Building No.3, Peddar Road, Lamington Road, Maharashtra-400026 Mumbai Central, Maharashtra-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatn2215N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 50C of the Act by adopting stamp duty value for the purpose of working out the capital gains. Assessment was P a g e | 4 ITA No. 3162/Mum/2024 & CO. No. 136/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Nanikram Menghraj Trust finalized at an income of Rs. 2,45,07,428/- on account of long-term capital gains so computed. 5. Aggrieved with

GHELANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP)1(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Charitable Trust Coming to the first and foremost issue of validity of section 148/147 proceedings itself, learned counsel could hardly dispute that the Assessing Officer’s corresponding reasons reproduced in para 3 of the assessment order dated 27.12.2018 had indeed taken note of not only the difference between actual sale price and stamp price of the corresponding capital asset giving

ANJUMAN E SHIATEALI ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrianikesh Banerjee, Jm A.Y.2018-19 Anjuman-E-Shiateali, Cit(Exemption), Taj Building 1St Floor, Mumbai 210, Departmental Vs. Representative Dn Road Mumbai, G.P.O. Mumbai-400001

Section 50C are not applicable in case of charitable trusts whose income is A Y : 2018–19 Anjuman-E Shiateali

HEMANT RANJIT KHATAU,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 18(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

charitable trust and the tenancy rights were sold for a sum of Rs.14 crores. The amount of compensation each co-owner was paid by separate cheques by the tenant Dawat-E-Hadiyah Trust. The assessee's share in the said property is 25% whereas he had received consideration which worked out to only 8.33% of the total sum received. Upon

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Charitable Trust vs CIT 230 ITR 864 (Bom.) e. V. Rangaswamy Naidu vs CIT 31 ITR 711 (Mad.) f. Addl. CIT vs Ganpati Raju 119 ITR 715 (AP) g. S. Vaidyanathna Swamy vs CIT 119 ITR 369 (Mad.) h. P. J. Mathew vs ITO 323 ITR 592 (Ker.) In the light of the above, it can be said that

SANGEETA JAGDISH KENY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 26(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2009-10

Charitable Trust (supra), the delay in the instant appeal deserves to be condoned. I hold so. 10. At the time of hearing, both the parties had addressed the dispute on merits also. The substantive grievance of the assessee is against the decision of the CIT(A) sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer adopting the full value of consideration

THE EXCUTIVE BOARD OF THE METHODIST CHURCH IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (E) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3341/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) The Executive Board Of The Methodist Asst. Dit (Exemptions)-1(2), 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Church In India बनाम/ 1, Prospect Chambers, Ground Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. 313, D. N. Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatt 5754 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shankar K. Jalghar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 02.03.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2005- 06. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Ground No. 1 - Re: Reopening Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2005- 06 Is Invalid & The Consequent Re-Assessment Is Illegal:

section 50C of the Act for computing the alleged capital gains in the case of the appellant being a charitable trust

ITO, LOWER PAREL vs. SOHIT SHRAVANKUMAR SADH, LOWER PAREL

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Income Tax Officer Sohit Shravankumar Sadh Room No. 213, 3Rd Floor, A-2, Unit No. 79, Shah & Amp, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Nahar Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 012 S J Road, Mumbai-400 013

Charitable Trust vs. CIT 122 ITR 594 (Bom) CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. 90 ITD 44 (Mum-Trib) ACIT vs. Smt. Hansaben B. Mehta 287 ITR 142 (Pune-ITAT) Smt. Nargis K. Irani vs. ITO 10. The ld. A.O. invoked section 56(2)(vii)(b) in his first draft assessment order dated 15.02.2021 and, subsequently invoked section

RATHAN B SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 17(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

section 50C & the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the invoking of the same and in applying the same to transfer of land/ rights by appellant which was/ were vested in her jointly, as occupants class II under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (M.L.R.C.) and the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation Act, 1976." (4) On the facts