ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

Section 54F ction 54F, even if the asessee has owned one , even if the asessee has owned one residential house as on the date of transfer, other than the residential house as on the date of transfer, other than the residential house as on the date of transfer, other than the new asset, or purchase in investments any residential

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 54F, even if the asessee has owned one Shweta Singh ITA no.3528/Mum./2023 residential house as on the date of transfer, other than the new asset, or purchase in investments any residential house other than the new asset within a period of one year or three years as the case may be, but after the date of transfer

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

depreciation under section 32 of the Act consequence to this decision consequence to this decision the Legislature had to amend the the Legislature had to amend the provisions of section 32 with effect from 1 provisions of section 32 with effect from 1-4-1997 by using the 1997 by using the expression "owned wholly wholly or partly". Since

DEEPA PAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ms. Deepa Pamnani Vs. The Income Tax Officer Pamnanai Hospital & Ward 20(1)(1) Research Center Piramal Chamber 33 Cf +6Qc , Railway Station Lal Baug Road, Prem Colony, Mandasur Mumbai 400012 Madhya Pradesh 458001 Pan Cstpp4472L (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Ca & Mr. Kapil Jain Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

54F is also not allowable. Therefore, he held that long-term capital gain earned by the assessee, accepted by the AO, is unexplained income under section 68 of the act. In fact, he considered the capital gain earned by the assessee as fictitious because there is an astronomical rise in the price of those shares as transacted by the assessee

DHIRAJKUMAR SOHANLAL THUKRAL ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2013-14 Dhirajkumar Sohanlal Thukral Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 33/34, Garden View Apartment, Tax, Circle 17(1) Mumbai. Road No. 29, Sion (E), (Respondent) Mumbai 400 022. Pan : Aabpt5208Q (Appellant)

Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) and as to disallowance of the unabsorbed depreciation. 2. The assessee

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

54F of the Act on sale of property and consequent investment in residential property. 05. The fact shows that the assessee has sold an industrial gala on which assessee has claimed depreciation in earlier years, the capital gain arising on sale of depreciable asset was utilized by the assessee in purchase of a house property and claimed exemption under Section

ITO 21 (1) (5), MUMBAI vs. JAYA DEEPAK BHAVNANI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer-21(1)(5) Smt. Jaya Deepak Bhavnani Room No. 120, 1St Floor 407, Sun Industrial Estate Vs. Piramal Chambers Sunmil Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400012 Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaapb7618R Appellant Respondent

Section 54F of the Act is available for depreciable assets as Section 54F does not make any distinction between depreciable

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

54F of the 1961 Act for reinvestment made in new residential properties We have observed the Section 50 creates a deeming fiction by modifying provisions of Section 48 and 49 of the 1961 Act for the purposes of computation of capital gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the 1961 Act with respect of the depreciable

MR. DOLLAR CHUNILAL MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1), MUMBAI

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

depreciable assets.\n3.2. The Ld.CIT(A),however,noted that the assessee had not claimed the exemption under section 54F in the return

ASHOK G. CHAUHAN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm (Division Bench) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1309/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) In The Matter Of;

depreciation Under Section 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the legislature had to amend the provisions of Section 32 with effect from 1.4.1997 by using the expression "owned wholly or partly". So, the word "own" would not include a case where a residential house is partly owned by one person or partly owned by other person(s). After

ITO 29(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. DEVYANI R DOSHI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

54F is available to depreciable asset as section 54F does not make any distinction between depreciable asset and a non depreciable

VINOD K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

54F without assigning any reason. 10. appellant facts are different than what modus appending mention by A.O. 11. notice u/s 148 is not valid it was served before information received at the time of service no information in possession of A.O. 12. confession of broker and gold star is general in nature not about appellant. 13. Your appellant craves your

VINOD K.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

54F without assigning any reason. 10. appellant facts are different than what modus appending mention by A.O. 11. notice u/s 148 is not valid it was served before information received at the time of service no information in possession of A.O. 12. confession of broker and gold star is general in nature not about appellant. 13. Your appellant craves your

RELIANCE POWER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Reliance Power Limited Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, H-Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Knowledge City, Koperkhairane, Mumbai – 400020] Navi Mumbai-400710 [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Reliance Power Limited Dcit – 15(3)(1), Mumbai Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Vs Walchand Hirachand Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai – 400020] [Pan: Aaacr2365L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

depreciable asset. Section 50 have a limited overriding effect and approval over provisions of section 48 and 49 and not on any other provisions such as 54, 54F

ITO 20(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. LEGAL HEIRS OF SHRI DURGAPRASAD AGNIHOTRI, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am

54F etc. are not linked to section 50. Therefore, if the assessee complies with conditions necessary under section 54E, he will be entitled to the benefit envisaged in section 54EC, even on transfer of depreciable

DCIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SUMAN N. BHALLA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2010-11)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the Legislature had to amend the provisions of section 32 with effect from 1-4-1997 by using the expression "owned wholly or partly". So, the word "own" would not include a case where a residential house is partly owned by one person or partly owned by other person

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-20(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK GOVINDJI CHAUHAN, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 20(1) Vs. Ashok Govindji Room No. 619, Chauhan, 6Th Floor, Piramal B 301, Veena Beena Chambers, Parel, Chs Ltd., Acharya Dome Mumbai – 400012. Marg, Sewree Mumbai – 400014. Pan/Gir No. Aabpc7897A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Krishna Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Ms .Vasanti Patel.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

depreciation Under Section 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the legislature had to amend the provisions of Section 32 with effect from 1.4.1997 by using the expression "owned wholly or partly". So, the word "own" would not include a case where a residential house is partly owned by one person or partly owned by other person(s). After

DCIT 5(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DAWOOD ABDULHUSSAIN GANDHI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 3788/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Dawood Abdulhussain बिधम/ Tax-5(2)(2), Room No. 571, Gandhi, 102, Lohar Chawl, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai 400002. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabpg4337K (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1916. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the AO be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that