ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 55A of the Act and the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to clause (b) thereof as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO [2009] 310 ITR 31/181 Taxman 191 (Guj.). In the said decision, it was held and observed as under:— 20 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 55A of the Act and the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to clause (b) thereof as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hiaben Jayantilal Shah v. ITO [2009] 310 ITR 31/181 Taxman 191 (Guj.). In the said decision, it was held and observed as under:— 20 ITA NO.3135& 3136/MUM/2019

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PENINSULA LAND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the 8 ITA No. 3717 & 2617/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITA.No. 2833 & 2617/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Peninsula Land Ltd., reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry

PENINSULA LAND LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the 8 ITA No. 3717 & 2617/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITA.No. 2833 & 2617/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Peninsula Land Ltd., reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry

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

55A deals with the income chargeable under the head “Capital gains”. Section 45 is charging section for capital gains in general cases. Sub-section (1) of section 45 provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in certain sections allowing exemptions, be chargeable

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) and adopt figure as determined by him read with provisions

DCIT 24(2), MUMBAI vs. SURATCHANDRA B. THAKKAR -HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.424/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit 24(2) C-13, 6Th Floor, बिधम/ Surat Chandra B. Thakkar- Huf Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vs. 67-A, Vithal Nagar Chs Rd Bandra (E) Mumbai 12, Jvpd Scheme Juhu Pin: 400051 Mumbai Pin: 400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahto788G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe (Dr) Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- (I) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Had No Jurisdiction To Refer The Case For Valuation To The M/S. Surat Chandra B. Thakkar Huf

depreciation on account of motor-car, the income of the Assessee was assessed to the tune of Rsw.10,25,58,010/-. Feeling aggrieved the Assessee filed the present appeal before the CIT(A)-34, Mumbai who partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee therefore, the Revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.1:- 5. Under this issue

ROSY BLUE SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Rosy Blue Securities Pvt. Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Range – 4(2) 154/C, Mittal Court Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai -400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacr4082Q

55A of the Act. In our considered opinion, sections which are for the computation of capital gains, have no relevance on the allowability of depreciation

ACC LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL CIT ,(LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as laid down in the provisions of Sec.32(1)(iia) of the Act and that conditions was not satisfied in the case of the Assessee. The AO accordingly disallowed the claim of the Assessee for additional depreciation. 28. Before we set out the conclusions of the CIT(A) on this issue, it would be worthwhile to examine the history

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation as laid down in the provisions of Sec.32(1)(iia) of the Act and that conditions was not satisfied in the case of the Assessee. The AO accordingly disallowed the claim of the Assessee for additional depreciation. 28. Before we set out the conclusions of the CIT(A) on this issue, it would be worthwhile to examine the history

VICKI ELECTRONICS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-31(3)()5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Income Tax Officer Vicki Electronics, Gala 31(3)(5), Bandra Kurla No. 23, Back Side Complex, Sidhpura Industrial Mumbai –400051 Estate, Off. S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aaafv0824B (Applicant) (Respondent)

55A of the Act r.w.s. 16A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as also the principles of natural 3 justice while valuing the Appellant's immovable property. 8. The CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in overlooking the fact that the DVO made the valuation of immovable property without following the accepted principles of valuation, which is self

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. At the relevant time, very clearly reference could be made to Departmental Valuation Officer only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of Assessing Officer less than its fair market value” 43. So in view of the matter

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. At the relevant time, very clearly reference could be made to Departmental Valuation Officer only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of Assessing Officer less than its fair market value” 43. So in view of the matter

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

section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n54 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \nfor allocation of notional expenditure. The deductions contemplated are \nthe

INFOMEDIA 18 LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS INFOMEDIA INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4441/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

Depreciation on main building = 116086X 25 Rs. 29,02,150/- ------------------------ Rs.2,62,75,430/- ITA 4441/M/2009 & 4461/M/2009 22 3. Builders Profit @20% Rs.1,70,64,642/- ------------------------ Total Rs.8,26,77,140/- ------------------------- The assessee company allocated the builder profit proportionately to the value of the land which then work out the value of land as on 01/04/1981 at Rs.4

VIJETA TRADING PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Cit, (Appeals), Vijeta Trading Pvt. Ltd. Nfac, Office No.64,3Rd Floor Poddar Chambers, 23 Parsi Bazar Street, Fort Mumbai – 4000001. Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1137H (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 254 of the Act was passed on 23/09/2019. 6.4 Against the said order, appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed and against that order of dismissal, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us on the grounds mentioned here in below: “1. The order

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

55A of the Act. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 17. The Assessee has entered into agreement for sale of the property on 12.7.2001. The amount received by the Assessee towards sale consideration over a period of time and utilization of the same for acquiring new capital asset were as follows: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 19 Mehta Charity Trust 17.1 In the case of Trustees of Shri Ramanagar

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

section 50(1) and (2) is restricted only \nto the mode of computation of capital gains contained in Section 48 and \n49 and does not apply to other provisions, since fiction created by the \nlegislature has to be confined to the purpose to which it is created. Also, \nthat section 54E does not make any distinction between depreciable \nassets