AMARJIT KAUR RANJIT SINGH ANAND,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

56(2)(x) of the Act, to the extent of Rs. 22,50,000/ the Act, to the extent of Rs. 22,50,000/-, as per the reasons stated , as per the reasons stated in the impugned order in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted At the outset, the learned

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), on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the entire difference 2 Meena Arjun Narang between the agreement value and the stamp duty value in the hands of the Appellant, ignoring the fact that the Appellant is a co-owner of the property

JAYANTILAL UMASHANKAR CHAVJI,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

condone the delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that the only issue raised by the assessee is on account of the addition made under section 56 (2) (x

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

condone the delay of 411 days in filing the appeal before us and admit the appeal for further adjudication. 7. On merits, the ld. AR during the course of hearing primarily made submissions with regard to the valuation of the DVO being not correct. In this regard the ld. AR submitted that the impugned land consisting of 2 plots

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

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)

Section 56(2)(x) cannot be invoked in the present case of the appellant.” 3. The assessee filed this appeal with a delay of 5 months. The Ld.AR submitted a condonation

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)

Section 56(2)(x) cannot be invoked in the present case of the appellant.” 3. The assessee filed this appeal with a delay of 5 months. The Ld.AR submitted a condonation

RAJSHRI PICTURES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

56(2)(x) should have been made and therefore set-aside the order of the AO passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 3. There is a delay of 343 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit along with a petition for condonation

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

x) and 43CA and the exceptions provided in the later three provisions have to be read into section 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

SMT SURUCHI SATISH SARMALKAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in the present appeal is challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs. 14,50,038/- by the AO. 6. In this regard Ld. AR reiterated

BUSHRA SUHAIL SHAIKH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -22(1)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon’Blebushra Suhail Shaikh Ito, Ward-22(1)(6), Mumbai Flat No. 301, Cadel Queen, A- Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Wing, S.V.S. Marg, Cadel Road, Vs Mumbai – 400012. Mahim West, Mumbai-400016. [Pan: Dsjps1674C] (Appellant) (Respondent ) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ca Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Department Represented By : Date Of Institution : 13.05.2025 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 18.08.2025

condoning delay. 6. On merit, in support of ground no. 1 which relates to addition under section 56(2)(x

SWATI SANJAY KHADYE,TARDEO MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBER LALBAUG

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

condoned the delay in filing the present appeal in terms of Section 253(5) of the Act and proceed to adjudicate the following grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee: “1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and facts in making addition of Rs.7,06,225 under Section 56(2)(x

MR CHETNARAYAN SITARAM SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

condone the delay. 4. In this case, assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act on account of non compliance to various notices etc. The AO made an addition of Rs. 6,17,74,500/- u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act, by treating the difference between the stamp duty value of the document executed by the assessee

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

JITENDRA VANIGOTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 233/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Jitendra Vanigota Vs. Ito, Ward 20(2)(1) 76, New Municipal Piramal Chambers Building, Shuklaji Mumbai. Street, Kamathipura Mumbai-400 008. Pan : Abopj3841P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Siddharth Kothari Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Appellant Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2020 – 21 Dated 28/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/4/2023 Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (The Learned Ao) Was Dismissed. Therefore, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Show That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Regularly Assessed To Income Tax. During The Year The Assessee Has Shown Income In The Form Of Remuneration, Interest On Capital & Share Of Profit From Partnership Firm. The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/12/2024 At A Total Income Of ₹ 12,50,380/–. 3. Assessee Has Entered Into An Agreement With The Builder In The Year 2013 To Purchase Of Flat. This Flat Was Registered On 22/11/2019 & The Value Of The Said Flat Was Taken At Rs 183,20,000. The Market Value Of The Said Flat Is ₹ 25,264,500/– Thus There Was A Difference Of ₹

56 (2) (x) of the act. Thus, the assessment order was passed under section 143 (3) read with section 144B of the income tax act on 24/4/2023 at ₹ 1,845,380/– whereas the addition was made in the hence of the assessee of ₹ 595,000 to the returned income of the assessee at ₹ 1,250,380/-. 4. Assessee preferred

MRS. DEEPALI VIKKI AJMERA,MULUND vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

delay is condoned. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessee had declared her income at Rs.7,39,507/- by filing return of income on dated 22.10.2020 for the AY under consideration and during the assessment year under consideration, the Assessee had purchased a property on a consideration of Rs.72

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