VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable under adopted or assessed or assessable under sub-section (1) (3) Where

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable under adopted or assessed or assessable under sub-section (1) (3) Where

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ANILKUMAR JAGDISHRAJ SETH , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth, 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Flat No. 1201, Jeevan Satya Co-Op. Vs. Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Housing Society, 15Th Road, Plot No. Mumbai-400012. 411, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aobps 8150 E Appellant Respondent

section 50C of the Act for substituting sale consideration shown by the assessee by the value as per stamp sale consideration shown by the assessee by the value as per stamp sale consideration shown by the assessee by the value as per stamp duty while computing duty while computing income under the head capital gain. income under the head capital

DCIT - 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AMARTARA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

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

50C overrides the provisions of section 45(3) but not given a categorical finding. The ITAT has give its findigs under different facts considering the fact that when a document is registered under the Provisions of Registration Act, 1908, the value determined by the stamp duty authority shall be replaced to determine full value of consideration. Therefore, we reverse

AMARTARA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 9(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

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

50C overrides the provisions of section 45(3) but not given a categorical finding. The ITAT has give its findigs under different facts considering the fact that when a document is registered under the Provisions of Registration Act, 1908, the value determined by the stamp duty authority shall be replaced to determine full value of consideration. Therefore, we reverse

GOBINDRAM JAGDISH KAKWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing exemption u/s 54F on grounds that the investment made for claiming sec 54F exemption was not made from the sale consideration received on sale of the old property. All the conditions of the Section 54F of the Inc Tax Act, 1961 have been met by the Assessee. The assessee has made the investment for residential flat

AXIA INFOSERVE LLP,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

section 50C will not be invoked.” 15. Respectfully following the above said decision, we are also inclined to accept that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2018 which is curative in nature and the effective rate of tolerance limit of 5% is applicable for the current Assessment Year also. Accordingly, the relief of 5% is extended to the current

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned

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

disallowance was confirmed. 11. Before us, the ld.AR has vehemently agitated the orders passed by the lower authorities claiming that in its case, there was no question of any capital gains as neither the provisions of section 50 or 50C

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 would apply.The matter needed due examination vis-a-vis\nthis provision also.\n13.3 In view ofthe discussion made above para,we are of the\nconsidered view that it would be in the fitness of things to set aside the\nmatter to the AO for de novo consideration of all the relevant aspects of the\ncase including the provisions

JOSEPH MUDALIAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

50C(1) by way of third proviso and section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The issue is no more res integra in view of a number of decisions of different benches of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has consistently expressed the view that since the aforesaid amendments made by Finance Act, 2018 with effect from

VOLTAS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 7(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Voltas Ltd. Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas House-A, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Vs. Rd, Chincpokli, Mumbai-40020 Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Voltas House-A, Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Rd, Vs. Mumbai-40020 Chincpokli, Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas (Ar) Revenue By Shri Asghar Zain (Dr)

disallowance under section 14A, as the Appellant Company has not incurred any interest cost or administrative cost for earning exempt dividend income. 3. During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted supplementary grounds to the original grounds and these are reproduced as under: “Supplementary Grounds to Ground No.1 - Long Term Capital Gains on sale of Land

NUTRELA MARKETING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee. 4.1 The Ld.AO further observed that the assessee sold immovable properties that were shown as fixed assets. 3 ITA No.3910/Mum/2010; A.Y. 2006-07 Nutrela Marketing Pvt Ltd Accordingly, sale of the deed land sold was called for. The Ld.AO noted that, the value adopted by the 'Stamp Valuation Authority' for the purposes of payment

KISHOR HIRA BHANDARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodshri Kishore Hira Bhandari I.T.O 30(2)(1) Kishore Bhandari Chawl, Mumbai Behind Mamta Medical Store, Vs. Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400064

Section 50C was introduced. While the Government must be complimented for the unparalleled swiftness with which the Easwar Committee recommendations, as accepted by the Government, were implemented, I, as a judicial officer, would think this was still one step short of what ought to have been done inasmuch as the amendment, in tune with the judge made law, ought

HBS VIEW PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

disallowed. 4.1. Proceeding further, the AO found that the assessee has purchased flat at 18th Floor in Lodha Costerja and on perusal of the details, the AO found that the agreement value of the property is Rs. 40,50,00,000/- whereas the stamp duty value u/s 50C is Rs. 43,76,58,000/-. The AO accordingly added Rs.3

DCIT 42 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR TRILOKNATH GOYAL, MUMBAI

Accordingly\nwe see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) who has deleted the\naddition made by the AO under section 43CA of the Act.\n16.\nIn result, appeal filed by the revenue i...

disallowed\n3,886,191\n388,624\n4.3\nSince the loans corresponding to the interest paid has already been\nallowed either by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT or the Ld. CIT(A) and no\nappeal has been preferred against said finding of CIT(A), therefore, the\ninterest paid in respect of those loans also stands allowed. We uphold

DCIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIROJ PALACE P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), M/S Piroj Palace P. Ltd., R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, 134 Nagindas Master Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Fort, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aafcp0219E (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 171/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.857/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Piroj Palace P. Ltd., The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, 134 Nagindas Master R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aafcp0219E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

section 50C of the Act do not apply to transfer of FSI. The AO rejecting the contention of the assessee treated the sale consideration at Rs. 1,43,60,000/- instead of Rs. 60,00,000/- and made disallowance

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance made by AO u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the rules." 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in granting relief of Rs. 23,58,33,200/- added in terms of section 50C

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance made by AO u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the rules." 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in granting relief of Rs. 23,58,33,200/- added in terms of section 50C