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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

SHRI MOHD. ILYAS ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C (2) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO cannot be approved. 13. Now, having held that since the AO failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the law and for this reason the addition cannot be held legally valid, the next question arises for consideration is whether the case be set aside

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

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021, which further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration, particularly in cases involving specified transactions. The addition of Rs. 3,26,58,000/- is in line with the statutory provisions and should have been upheld

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021,\nwhich further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the\ndifference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration, particularly\nin cases involving specified transactions. The addition of Rs.3,26,58,000/- is in line\nwith the statutory provisions and should have been upheld

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

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

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

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

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