DY CIT DD-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before us. As of now, those issues are infructuous and do not call for any adjudication at this stage.” 4.1. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs.3

M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before us. As of now, those issues are infructuous and do not call for any adjudication at this stage.” 4.1. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs.3

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

depreciable asset is\ncomputed as per the special provisions contained in section 50, the\nprovisions of section 50C can be applied

PRATAP RATAN DAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1272/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

depreciable assets/ business assets, in case of ITO vs. United Marine Academy (date of order 25.4.2011) in following words. “There are two deeming fictions created in section 50 and section 50C

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 50C while computing allowable depreciation. In this regard, the provision 1 of section 50C are re-produced hereunder: Section

MOHD RAZA AKBERALI GHUGHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

50C makes it amply clear that the provisions of this section applies specifically only to section 48 and to no other section. Section 48 deal with mode of computation of capital gains and it 10 Mohd Raza Adberali applies only when there are certain capital gain which are chargeable to tax as per section 45 meaning thereby section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

50C, which has\nbeen reproduced hereinabove, also shows that there is no such\ndistinction made between a depreciable asset and a non-depreciable\nasset and it, therefore, cannot be said that the said provision is not\napplicable in a case of transfer of depreciable asset which is covered\nby section

HIRANANDANI INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Hiranandani Industrial Enterprises, The Assistant Commissioner Of 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, F P J Vs. Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Room No. 117, Aayakar Bhavan, 400021 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaafh1372E Appellant Respondent

depreciable asset is computed as per the special provisions contained in section 50, the provisions of section 50C can be applied

3A COMPOSITES INDIA PRIVATE LIMIED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

depreciation. In this regard, the provision 1 of section 50C are\nre-produced hereunder:\nSection 50C(1): Where the consideration

RAPTAKOS BRETT AND CO.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

depreciation by applying provisions of section 50C of the Act to a depreciable asset sold by the assessee. Facts relating

ABHIDEEP CHEMICALS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 14, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Abhideep Chemicals Vs. Pr Cit – 14, Mumbai – 400 Pvt. Ltd., 503, Keshava Bkc 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca5336N Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 50C are applicable in the case of transfer of land and building including depreciable capital asset. The provision of section

ACIT -893) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIPLE SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such a transfer. Two things are noticeable from this provision. Firstly, it is a deeming provision and secondly, it extends only to land or building or both. It is manifest that a deeming provision has been incorporated to substitute the value

KHANNA ICE AND COLD STORAGE P. LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

depreciable, could not ever be assessed under section 50. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as concurring with the principles laid down in the above judicial pronouncement, we hold that learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the applicability of section 50 on transfer of building and calculated short term capital gain against long

POWERNETICS EQUIPMENT INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

section 50C of the Act are not applicable to the assessee, therefore this ground is infructuous and needs no adjudication. 7 M/s. Powernetics Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. 11. The issue in ground No.4 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in not applying the rate of Rs.15,960/- per sq. mtr. Which is as per MIDC a Govt body

M/S. DATAMATRIX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5358/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2016-17) Datamatrix Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Acit 504, 5 Th Floor, Sai Arpan, P.G. Circle 9(3)(1), Vora Road, Next To P.G. Vora फनाभ/ Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, School, Mira Road (E), Thane- Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 401107 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacg4096M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri. V.Vidyadhar, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2021

depreciable asset, was governed by the specific provisions of Section 43(6) read with Section 41(4) of the Act and not by the provisions of Sections 45, 48 and 50C

DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. NADIR NAZARALI DHANANI, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.100/Mum./2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–24(3), C–11, 7Th Floor …….………. अऩीरधथी / Bandra Kurla Complex Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 V/S Shri Nadir Nazarali Dhanani Plot No.1B, Cama Industrial Estate ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Cama Estate Main Road Respondent Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aabpd3008Q प्रत्मधऺेऩ सं. / C.O. No. 42/Mum./2014 (आमकय अऩीर सं. 100/Mum./2013 से उद्बूत) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 100/Mum./2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) Shri Nadir Nazarali Dhanani Plot No.1B, Cama Industrial Estate …….………. अऩीरधथी / Cama Estate Main Road Appellant Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aabpd3008Q V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Circle–24(3), C–11, 7Th Floor Bandra Kurla Complex Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri Santosh Mankaskar ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Yougesh Thar A/W Shri Devang K. Shah

section 50C are applicable. He further submitted that the assessee has not shown the land as part of block of asset in the Balance Sheet, whereas he claimed depreciation

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

50C of the Act, the same analogy would apply for of the Act, the same analogy would apply for provisions of provisions of Section 43CA of the Act also as similar proviso of the Act also as similar proviso is available in is available in Section 43CA of the Act also. Hence, of the Act also. Hence, respectively following

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. LOKHANDWALA KATARIA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

50C of the Act, the same analogy would apply for of the Act, the same analogy would apply for provisions of provisions of Section 43CA of the Act also as similar proviso of the Act also as similar proviso is available in is available in Section 43CA of the Act also. Hence, of the Act also. Hence, respectively following