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

section 50C are not applicable on transfer of provisions of section 50C are not applicable on transfer of provisions of section 50C are not applicable on transfer of development rights. The said finding of the Ld CIT(A) is reproduced ts. The said finding of the Ld CIT(A) is reproduced ts. The said finding

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

disallowance is not tenable. 47. We heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We notice from the tax audit report that the assessee has claimed the deduction under section 35(2)(ia) towards scientific expenditure and not under section 35(1)(ii) as held by the lower authorities. In this connection it is relevant to look

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

disallowance under the said sub-clause will be attracted, if, after deduction of tax during the previous year, the same has not been paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income specified in sub-section (1) of section 139. The proviso to the said sub-clause provides that where in respect of any such

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

disallowance under the said sub-clause will be attracted, if, after deduction of tax during the previous year, the same has not been paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income specified in sub-section (1) of section 139. The proviso to the said sub-clause provides that where in respect of any such

FUTURA POLYSTERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. In sum and substance, the Hon‘ble Apex Court had observed, that in terms of Sec. 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will be completed only when

FUTURA POLYSTERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. In sum and substance, the Hon‘ble Apex Court had observed, that in terms of Sec. 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will be completed only when

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

disallowance u/s.14A of the IT Act.” Revenue –ITA No.5377/Mum/2015 (M/s Welspun India Ltd) The ground or grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1.a) On the facts and in the circumstanees of the case and in law, the Id. C1T(A) erred in not appreciating that:-(i) the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.!53A

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowed the of the Income tax Act. In the result, this ground of the appeal is dismissed. ” 12. The Ld. AR submitted that the tenancy rights acquired by the assessee is a perpetual one and by virtue of section 22, the assessee would be the deemed owner of the property. The ld. AR further submitted that the tenancy rights agreement

VIJAY ALLOYS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalvijay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 12, Happy Home, 244, Waterfield Road ……………. Appellant Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan – Aaacv2951J

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, are fully complied with resulting in a transfer of capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. As observed earlier, out of the total sale consideration of ` 6.30 crore the assessee has received an amount of ` 5,53,18,910. As regards the balance amount

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

53A of Transfer of Property Act but invested in specified bonds i.e. NABARD bonds within one month of the receipt of sale consideration being part payment. Hence, we are of the considered view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act on part payment received after completion of transaction on 02.07.2004. In view of the above

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

53A of Transfer of Property Act but invested in specified bonds i.e. NABARD bonds within one month of the receipt of sale consideration being part payment. Hence, we are of the considered view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act on part payment received after completion of transaction on 02.07.2004. In view of the above

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

53A of Transfer of Property Act but invested in specified bonds i.e. NABARD bonds within one month of the receipt of sale consideration being part payment. Hence, we are of the considered view that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act on part payment received after completion of transaction on 02.07.2004. In view of the above

ACIT - 29(2), MUMBAI vs. MACHINERY & SPARES, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini, Hon’Bleacit-29(2), Vs. M/S. Machinery & Spares, Building No. C-10, Room 201-202 Karm Stambh, Lbs No. 202, Income Tax Marg, Opp. Mtnl, Vikhroli-W, Office, Bandra Kurla Mumbai- 400 083. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51 Pan No. Aaafm 1528 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

53A of the I.T. Act, and assessee failed to prove any such 'part performance'. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) erred in importing the Concept of acquiring rights for 'Twelve year' fro section 269UA clause(f), while interpreting section 27(iii b) whereas what is required to be seen only

VEENA M DALAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD II) CR 7, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Veena M. Dalal, Dcit(Osd Ii), Central Range-7, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, 42, Chitrakoot, Altamount Road, Vs. 101 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026. Pan: Acbpd4089R (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh on account of undisclosed income for foreign visit in the assessment order dated 28.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 4. Against order dated 28.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal

BALAJEE INFRATECH & CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. New sub-clauses (v) and (v) have been inserted in section 2(47) to prevent avoidance 11 Balajee Infratech & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., of capital gains liability by recourse to transfer of rights in the manner referred to above FINANCE ACT, 1987 11.2 The newly inserted sub-clause (vi) of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN EXPRESS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowance of Rs. 5,65,404/- claimed u/s. 35D is deleted. This ground is allowed.” 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order by holding that there was expansion of the existing unit. During the course of hearing also we required

ANILKUMAR DULICHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(1) & CIT (A) 28, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Anil Kumar Dulichand Acit-17 & Cit(A)-28 Jain C/O. 207, Dalamal Earnest House, Nariman Vs. Chambers-29 New Marine Point, Lines, Churchgate Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadpj3265B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. N.O. Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Virender Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

disallowance of Rs.50,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 54EC. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the deemed transfer as per agreement dated 05.08.2011 does not constitute the transfer as per section 53A

SHEHROZ ZAKIR HUSAIN MALIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 26(3)(20, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late Sh. Shehrozzakir Husain Malik Income Tax Officer-26(3)(2), Through Legal Heir Shahbazshehroz Malik, Pratyakshakar, C-11, 1307, Rcs & Associates Mayuresh Cosmos Vs. Bandrakurla Complex, Tower, Sarovarvihar Road, Sector-11, Cbd Bandra East, Belapur, Mumbai-400051. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan No. Aagpm 4512 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neeraj Mangla, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

disallowance of exemption claimed by the assessee us 54 of the Act of Rs. 85,32,583/- ignoring the fact that the assessee purchased the new flat within the period prescribed u/s 54 of the Act. Thus, the exemption claimed must be allowed. 5. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, alter, delete or amend