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, which was introduced by way of Finance Act, 2018 introduced by way of Finance Act, 2018 and whether same and whether same would be applicable retrospectively. be applicable retrospectively. In the case the stamp duty value has mp duty value has been substituted by the value estimated by the department valuer. been substituted by the value estimated

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)

50C valuation), when the D.V.O had valued it at Rs.55,32,000/- which was accepted by the assessee and the IT.O Int tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai has also passed rectification order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961, accepting the value passed by the DVO as the sale consideration amount for calculation of capital gains. Hence, the sale

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

50C of the Act. The grounds\n5 and 6 are therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.\nAdditional ground dated 24.06.2024\n14. During hearing of the case, a request was made by the assessee\nfor admission of Additional ground of appeal with regard to section 14A by\nclaiming that the AO has not recorded satisfaction with respect of\ncorrectness of claim

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 can't be extended to the facts of the case, accordingly, we set aside the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and we delete the disallowance made by the lower authorities. Ground no. 1

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

1. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 76,66,066/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was related to the excess interest claimed by the assessee under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act and the interest claimed was not exclusively linked

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

1) of the Act. The assessee had challenged the same and in the earlier paragraphs, we have restored this issue to the file of the AO with certain directions. Accordingly, we are of the view that the decision rendered will take care of the ground urged by the revenue on this issue in both the years. 41 Reliance Industries

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

1) of the Act. The assessee had challenged the same and in the earlier paragraphs, we have restored this issue to the file of the AO with certain directions. Accordingly, we are of the view that the decision rendered will take care of the ground urged by the revenue on this issue in both the years. 41 Reliance Industries

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

1) of the Act. The assessee had challenged the same and in the earlier paragraphs, we have restored this issue to the file of the AO with certain directions. Accordingly, we are of the view that the decision rendered will take care of the ground urged by the revenue on this issue in both the years. 41 Reliance Industries

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

1) of the Act. The assessee had challenged the same and in the earlier paragraphs, we have restored this issue to the file of the AO with certain directions. Accordingly, we are of the view that the decision rendered will take care of the ground urged by the revenue on this issue in both the years. 41 Reliance Industries

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

1), by inserting the third proviso thereto and by enhancing the tolerance band for variations between the stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation to 10%, are curative in nature, and, therefore, these provisions, even though stated to be prospective, must be held to relate back to the date when the related statutory provision of Section 50C

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 ()

1) and subsequently, the return was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) was issued to the assessee 4. The Ld.AO noted that the assessee claimed bad debts of Rs.18,99,714/-. As the assessee could not substantiate the evidences in respect of the same the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of the assessee. 4.1 The Ld.AO further observed that

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

section 50C. Consideration of \nRs.47,14,67,550/- as received by it is deemed to be the full value of \nconsideration. Long term capital gain computed by the assessee, as \ntabulated above, is thus, accepted and ground raised by the assessee \non this issue is allowed. \n\nXV. Additional claim of the Assessee with regard to inadvertent \nsuo moto disallowance

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

50C is even applicable making retrospective application to section 43CA of the Act as well. The ld. A.R was unable to place on record before us any direct decision where the first proviso of section 43CA which has been brought into effect from 1-4-2021 was held to be applicable retrospectively. In such scenario, we place reliance

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

50C is even applicable making retrospective application to section 43CA of the Act as well. The ld. A.R was unable to place on record before us any direct decision where the first proviso of section 43CA which has been brought into effect from 1-4-2021 was held to be applicable retrospectively. In such scenario, we place reliance

LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

1 to letter no. TAX/5094/L&T/2005-CIT(A) dt. 02.12.2009 instead of correct disallowance amount of Rs. 411.67 Lacs. The copies of contract with client and the relevant Schedule 2 indicating the contract value were submitted.” However, the above submissions did not find favour with the CIT(A) 67. who agreed with TPO/Assessing Officer and vide order, dated 12/08/2013, inter alia

ACIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGALPRABHAT GUMANMAL LODHA , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowed.\n4. 1. Proceeding further, the AO found that the assessee has purchased\nflat at 18th Floor in Lodha Costerja and on perusal of the details, the AO\nfound that the agreement value of the property is Rs.40,50,00,000/-\nwhereas the stamp duty value u/s 50C is Rs.43,76,58,000/-. The AO\naccordingly added Rs.3

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

1) of the Act as no expenditure/loss was claimed\nby it. Besides, the AO did not issue any notice to them u/s 133(6) and\nobtain ledger account of the assessee even after request made to him. No\ncross-examination was also allowed. The assessee submitted confirmations\nfrom two parties CSV Techno and Nikhil Comforts in support of the claim

ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

disallowable item and added back to its profit before tax for computing total income in the earlier years. In the year under consideration, balance in the lease equalisation account is a credit balance at the year end. For this credit balance, assessee reduced the same from the profits while computing total income for the year. However, ld. Assessing Officer denied