ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. PUNITA SANJAY BIDRA , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-28(2), Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra, Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor, Tower 505-506, Kesar Solitaire, 5Th Vs. No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Floor, Sanpada, Plot No. 5, Complex, Vashi, Sector-19, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Acspb 2454 M Appellant Respondent

disallowance of deduction under section 54 deduction under section 54F of the Act Act. 5. The Assessee shown long The Assessee

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

SHALINI ANAND MURTHY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 54F amounting to ₹23,50,00,000/-. Though the said claim of exemption was Though the said claim of exemption was Though the said claim of exemption was disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

54F of the Act to the tune of Rs. 61,65,546 was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Shweta Singh ITA no.3528/Mum./2023 8. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the disallowance made by the AO under section

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

disallowance for claim of set off of current year speculation profit of Rs.27,85,009/- against the brought forward business loss from AY 2009– 10. 9. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in laws and in facts in charging the interest u/s 234A, 234B and. 234C of the Act.‖ 5. During the course of hearing, at the outset, learned Authorised

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 32(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

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

54F is allowed as above, while the ground relating to short-term capital gain was dismissed as not pressed. Penalty Appeal – ITA No. 4976/Mum/2025 32. We now take up the penalty appeal, wherein penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been levied on the additions/disallowances made in the quantum assessment, namely, the addition under section 50C and the disallowance

ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54F of the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term capital asset, on the ground that the assessee owned interest in n the ground that

ASHOK KESHAVLAL TEJUJA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 18(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3429/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ashok Keshavlal Tejuja बिाम/ Acit, Cir 18(1), 11T H Floor, Neelkanth Now Cir 21(1), Apertments, Worli Hill Road, Piramal Chambers, V. Worli, Mumbai-400018 1St Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpt1714D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

disallowing the I.T.A. No.3429/Mum/2016 exemption claim u/s 54F of Rs 76,66,657, although all the requisite conditions laid down in section

ACIT 25 (3), MUMBAI vs. MOHAN PRABHAKAR BHIDE, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed

section 54F and is being disallowed. The assessed income was computed by disallowing the deduction claimed under section 54F as per following

DEEPA PAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ms. Deepa Pamnani Vs. The Income Tax Officer Pamnanai Hospital & Ward 20(1)(1) Research Center Piramal Chamber 33 Cf +6Qc , Railway Station Lal Baug Road, Prem Colony, Mandasur Mumbai 400012 Madhya Pradesh 458001 Pan Cstpp4472L (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Ca & Mr. Kapil Jain Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

section 54F of The Act. In view of this the learned AO disallowed the claim under section 54F and passed

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 ()

Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act 3. The learned CIT(A)/AO have failed to appreciate

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 ()

Disallowance of exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act 3. The learned CIT(A)/AO have failed to appreciate

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

Disallowance of an exemption u/s 54F of the Act is unjustified. 4. The NFAC has erred in denying the benefit of an exemption u/s 54F of the Act without appreciating that all the conditions precedent to claim the benefit of section

FARHAN MAKKI PETTIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farhan Makki Pettiwala Assistant Commissioner B-102, Bianca, Panch Marg Of Income Tax - 24(1) 402, Yari Road, Next To Ashoka Vs. Mumbai Towers, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400061 Pan - Aacpp2204P Appellant Respondent

section 54F of the Act (ii) Disallowance under section 14 `2,56,495/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment

ANANT R GAWANDE,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give consequential relief

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

disallowed the claim made by the assessee under section 54F of the Act as the assessee was legally owner of more

KHALID SAYED ,DELHI vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

section. 8. Also, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Leena J. Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Baroda in ITA No. 2467 (AHD.) OF 2000 for the Asst. Year 1998-99 dated 10.11.2005, where the benefit of exemption us 54F was disallowed

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act (the Act) to the tune of Rs.3 crores. 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for assessment year 2016-17 declaring total income of Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala 2 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala Rs.5,43,56,720/-. The case was selected for scrutiny