MR.LEMES E. D'SOUZA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 21(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5802/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10) Mr. Lemes E. D’ Souza, Ito – Ward 21(3)(3), बनाम/ Alk Bricks Factory Room No. 507, 5 Th Floor, V. Company, C-11, Pratyakshakar Behind Sakinaka, Bhavan, Motor Training School, B.K.C. Bandra, Opp. Janseva Decoilers, Mumbai – 400 051. Sakinaka, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadpd7091 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled for the exemption under section 54E. On a reference, the Hon'ble Court held that the assessee received the amounts in 1991-92. Admittedly, the amounts were deposited by the assessee within six months from the date of its receipt

ITO 24(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. MOHMMED IQBAL MOHD. AFAQUE KHAN, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) V. Shri Mohammed Iqbal Mohd. Afaque Khan A-602, Plot No. 447 Room No. 611, Piramal Chambers Highland Park Chs Ltd., Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Opp. Morarji Takka, Panvel -410206 Pan: Aacpk7522M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri M.P. Ahuja

section can disallow the deduction of a legitimate cost incurred on the asset. Out of the above Rs.8,85,150/- is cost of improvement on the land sold. Hence the same is deducted. The interest has been considered on Land sold for the last two years. Details is attached. The interest is paid and TDS has been duly deducted

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

54B and section 54D also use the word ‘any other land’ and ‘any other land and building’ respectively. The expression ‘any other land’ is an expression of widest amplitude and, therefore, its meaning cannot be restricted to any one piece of land. On the other hand, the Legislature has used the word ‘a’ in sections

SAIFULLAH A KHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD-3(3), THANE

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Ravish Soodsaifullah Abdullah Khan Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-2, Prop: Reliance Engineering Co. Room No. 29, B Wing, 6Th Floor, G/58, Kharghar Village, Sector-12, Ashar I.T. Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Vs. Behind Nimisha Hospital, Kharghar, Thane - 400 604 Navi Mumbai – 410210

54B of Rs.5,39,75,247/- that was raised by the assessee. 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) wherein he had imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. MRS. NITTA VINODKUMAR JATIYA , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

disallowed to the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to allow the benefit as per provisions of section 54B

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

disallowing the claim on the basis of the following: i. By making a reference to section 1 of the Act which relates to Short title, extent and commencement of the Act and mentions that the Act extends to the whole of India. The AO's view is that the assessee cannot claim benefit of section 54 for purchase of residential

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

disallow the claim merely because the flats were purchased by two separate agreements. 4.6. So long as the house is used by the assessee as one single unit, though by conversion, in our view, the exemption cannot be denied to the assessee under section 54F of the Act. There is nothing on record brought by the revenue other than arguing

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

disallow the claim merely because the flats were purchased by two separate agreements. 4.6. So long as the house is used by the assessee as one single unit, though by conversion, in our view, the exemption cannot be denied to the assessee under section 54F of the Act. There is nothing on record brought by the revenue other than arguing

LATE. SMT. INDIRA J. VIKAMSY ,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RG-22(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

54B of the Act amounting to Rs.21,25,000/- and disallowance of expenditure of Rs.4,91,496/- against the long term capital gain on sale of property. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition/disallowances on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate the fact that

MAHESH GORDHANDAS GARODIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Shri Maheshkumar Gordhandas Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Garodia, Income Tax 22(1) 149/156, Garodia Shopping Centre, Mumbai Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No.Aacpg2906R Appellant) .. Respondent) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh S Garodia, Income Tax 27(2) 149/156, Garodia Shopping Mumbai Centre, Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 077 Pan/Gir No.Aacpg2906R Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue By Shri Purushottam Tripuri Date Of Hearing 10/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 12/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

disallowed brokerage of Rs.1 Crore. 6. By the impugned order CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.50 Crores, but held that reference to DVO was not justified, against which both assessee and revenue are in further appeal before us. 7. At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the Tribunal in the case of the co-owner

LATE SHRI GORDHANDAS S. GARODIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowed PMS expenditure claimed by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal. Though, the assessee challenged the addition made on account of capital gain, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) also sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4 Late Shri Gordhandas S. Garodia 6. Dr. K. Shivaram, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that looking at the volume

ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 40, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

disallowances as against returned income of Rs.1019.10 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 13/10/2010. The Capital Gains of Rs.400 Lacs as brought to tax by Ld.AO is the sole subject matter of present appeal before us. 2.4 During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee was a partner of 30% in a partnership firm namely M/s Mahakosh Property Developers

MR COLATHUR N. RAM ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 34(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of what we have observed hereinabove

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

disallowed the claim for the cost of acquisition/construction on the sale of Bangalore property without any cogent reason. Mr. Colathur N. Ram 11. It transpires from the perusal of the assessment order that no documentary evidence in respect of the details with regard to the actual indexed cost of Bangalore property (Amos5) was submitted by the assessee during the assessment

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

GAD LOGISTIC I P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

In the result, these appeals are dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

section 143(3) r.w.s.153(B)(b) and 143(3) r.w.s. 153(A)(a) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2007-08 and the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Vide appeal No. 3128/M/2017 appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned

PRADIPKUMAR P. KANAKIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR13(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradipkumar Purshottam Dcit, Kanakia, Circle-13(2), बनाम/ C/O- Pratap Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18, Steel Yard House, Iron Mumbai-400020 Market, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400009 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Afvpk8451P

disallowing the claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) amounting to Rs.63,62,400/-. 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Dalpat Shah, claimed that the impugned issue is covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Rajesh Keshav Pillai vs Income Tax Officer