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

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

2 to Section 37(1) of the Act by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f01.04.2015. However, there is no such Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT corresponding amendment to section 80G of the Act. Only condition for claiming deduction under section 80G of the Act as per the existing provision is the institute to which donation is made must have

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

In the result, **appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar**

2)(a) since the value assessed by the stamp valuation authorities exceeded the fair market value of the property as shown in the approved valuer's report.He did not appreciate that Section 50C does not apply to sale of assets forming part of Block of Assets. Provisions of section 50 as well a section 50C are mutually disjoint provisions

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI 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

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)

2.e3) had held that section 48 provides for mode of computation of capital gains and section 50C has been introduced from 1.4.2003 by Finance Act. 2002. The conspectus of the provision is that it is a special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. It applies to all cases of transfer of capital assets

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. Thus we agree with the view of the Ld. CIT(A). 7.3 However, it is found that in para 15 of the order dated 23.03.2018 the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to make a reference to Valuation Officer in accordance with the provisions of section 50C(2

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

50C is not applicable to all the capital assets but only to a capital asset which is land or building or both. Explanation 2 to section 2(42C) defining `slump sale’ has made it clear that the determination of the value of asset or liability for the purposes of payment of stamp duty etc. shall not be regarded as assignment

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

2)(a) since the value assessed by the stamp\nvaluation authorities exceeded the fair market value of the property as\nshown in the approved valuer's report.He did not appreciate that Section\n50C does not apply to sale of assets forming part of Block of Assets.\nProvisions of section 50 as well a section 50C are mutually disjoint\nprovisions

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

ACIT- 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MM/S SANOFI INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2 to 8). Copy of the order is placed on record. 68. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the submissions of the Ld.AR. 69. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03. While deciding the issue

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2 to 8). Copy of the order is placed on record. 68. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the submissions of the Ld.AR. 69. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03. While deciding the issue

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

2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer by way of compulsory acquisition under any law of a capital asset, being land or building or any right in land or building, forming part of an industrial undertaking...." [underlined for emphasis by us] 10. Ostensibly, in section 54D(1) of the Act, the 'capital asset' has been understood

BSI SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

50C at Rs.51,96.190/- instead of Rs.42,90,190/-. 2. The Learned CFT(A) ought not to have confirmed computation of capital gains at Rs.51,96,190/- instead of Rs.42,90,190/-. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or modify his ground or grounds of appeal before the hearing.” 3. Apropos disallowance of assessee’s claim

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2. Ld. Counsel referred to the first appellate order for Assessment Year 2002-03 on the same issue wherein the matter had been set aside to the file of ld. Assessing Officer, owing to rectification application pending before him in this respect. Ld. Assessing Officer was directed to decide the rectification application after verification of facts. In the year under

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HDFC LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2,68,76,000 Less: Used for issue of Bonus Shares | 1,43,77,167 | 1,94,71,877 | | 50,00,00,000 SHELTER ASSISTANCE RESERVE | 10,64,44,875 | 9,57,14,379 Opening Balance | 4,00,00,000 | 4,00,00,000 Less: Transfer from Profit and Loss Account | 1,75,00,000 | 4,25,00,000 Less

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

2. It is noted that an amendment was brought into section 36(1)(viii) w.e.f. 01.04.1998 whereby assessee alongwith creation of reserve was also required to maintain the said reserve. A corresponding amendment was also brought to section 41(4A) which reads as under: “41(4A). where a deduction has been allowed in respect of any special reserve created

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

depreciation is available under the ready reckoner rate and which has not been given at the time of registration to determine the market value u/s 50C. The AO has not even applied his mind to the above facts of the case for considering market value for the purpose of section 50C and escapement of income. 3) As per The recorded