TUTOR INVESTMENT& FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which, vide its order in ITA No. 6752/Mum/2017 dated 15.06.2018, upheld the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act.

delay for 113 days is condoned, and matter is taken for adjudication. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Learned CIT (A)-54, Mumbai erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- on account of alleged difference in fair market value and actual

GOLD COIN APARTMENTS CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

delay of 101 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to examine the grounds raised in the present appeal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. In the present case it is not disputed by the Revenue that the Assessee is a co-operative society and it has received interest income from co-operative banks

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

condoned. 3. The sole issue in the present matter pertains to the date of stamp duty valuation of the property which the assessee had purchased in the year 2010 for a consideration of Rs. 44,00,000/-, which was further added with certain development charges, society advance maintenance and other taxes. The property was allotted to the assessee vide allotment

SMT MOHINI BHARAT KUMAR LUDHANI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE. DELHI, MUMBAI

delay of\n2 days in filing the appeal cause on account of health issues faced by\nthe Appellant is condoned.\nAccordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits taking\ninto the consideration the revised grounds of appeal filed by the\nAppellant vide letter dated 12/01/2023 which read as under:\n“1.\nThe learned CIT(A) erred in confirming

SHRI GIRISH SHIVRAM PAWAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO-24(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Shivram Pawar Giriraj C.H.S.L. Flat No.24, Near Kadamwadi, Marol Pipeline, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaipp8103B V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(1)(4), Mumbai - 400051 ……………. Respondent

condone the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee and we proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 4 5. The solitary issue arising for our consideration in the present case pertains to the addition made under section 56(2)(vii

JAGMEET SINGH SABHARWAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) to provide true meaning to the intention of the legislature and it has been held that the assessee would be eligible to get the benefit of 10% margin difference in the valuation between the value determined by the stamp duty authority and the declared sale consideration and the amendment brought in by the Finance

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA UNIVERSAL PVT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

56,20,336\n7.4 The aforesaid amount of ₹54.56 crores was written off as bad debts during the year under consideration. This comprised interest accrued and charged by the assessee amounting to ₹44.94 crores, which had been offered to tax in earlier years, and the balance principal amount of ₹9 crores. The Assessing Officer allowed deduction of the interest component

JAGDISH JAMAKLAL MANSUKHANI,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing an Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961, which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

REKHA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. AO, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeerekha Shah Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre D-614, Veena Santoor, Sector- (Nfac) / Ito-Ward-34(3)(2), 8, Opp. Kvsc, Sai Baba Nagar Mumbai Extension Road, Borivali (W), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Banda, Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Abgps4732G Appellant Respondent

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Ld.AR argued and submitted that on page 2 of the assessment order, the Ld.AO mentioned that no return of income was filed for the year under consideration and no assessment was made and that the only requirement for initiating proceedings u/s 147 is reason

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

OM SAWMI SMARAN DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 6. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking Appeal in ITA.No. 6915/MUM/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 as a lead appeal. 7. Brief facts of the case

SAGGAR PARIMMAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

delay for 5 months in filing appeal before the ITAT is condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that both assessees, as co-owners, jointly purchased a residential flat in Kandivali West, Mumbai. The registration of the said flat was completed on 01.09.2017. The declared value of the property was Rs.2

KETAN KUMAR SAGAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

delay for 5 months in filing appeal before the ITAT is condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that both assessees, as co-owners, jointly purchased a residential flat in Kandivali West, Mumbai. The registration of the said flat was completed on 01.09.2017. The declared value of the property was Rs.2

RANVIJAY HALDHAR SINGH,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALATE CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

56(2) (vii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law. The appellant purchased a residential property in Thakur 2 Mr. Ranvijay Haldhar Singh Jewel Co-op. Housing Society Ltd on 31.08.2016 for a purchase consideration amounting to Rs.2,72,00,000/-. The Stamp duty value of such property amounted to Rs.2,77,13,500/-. The difference

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(2) proceeding and was treated as such by the assessee preclude it from urging lack of jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) (3) There is no interplay of section 127 as held in para 8, in the following words- "8. As far as the section 127 goes, we are of the opinion that having regard to the findings rendered, that question

DBS BANK LTD (DBS BANK LTD., INDIA BRANCHES NOW CONVERTED INTO DBS BANK INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT TXT)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

56, Mumbai [herein after referred to as the "CIT(A)"] erred in upholding the action of the Assessing officer ("AO") in not allowing the deduction for bad debts written off of Rs.427,46,46,000 net of sale consideration of the non-performing asset (NPA), under section 36(i)(vii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The Appellants

DHANAJI MAHADEV THAKUR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD -3 PANVEL , RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dhanaji Mahadev Thakur Ito Ward-3 House No. 253, Dhutum Post Jasai Uran Panvel Raigad, Taluka, District – Raigad, Vs. Maharashtra-410 206 Navi Mumbai-410 206

Delay condoned. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2 Dhanaji Mahadev Thakur vs. ITO a. Whether a sum of Rs.91,24,050/- deserves to be added in his hand under the provisions of sub clause (b)(ii) of sub section (vii) of sub section (2) of section 56

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

delay is hereby condoned and appeal so filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has originally filed his return of income on 28-09-2012, declaring total income of Rs. 5,12,500/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income