BHARATKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income

BHARTKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3),

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. ASHOKKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income

ITO 14(1)3, MUMBAI vs. BHARATKUMAR M PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income

ASHOKKUMAR MANEKLAL PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed, whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3708/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1250/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ Shri Bharatkumar Maneklal The Ito 14(1)(3), Parikh, Mumbai. Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4985/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.4986/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 बिाम/ The Ito 14(1)(3), Shri Bharatkumar Mumbai. Maneklal Parikh, Vs. Arunodaya, 10 Th Floor, Flat No. 1002 & 1003, Opp. New India Colony, C.D. Bariwala Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aacpp7754L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

54G - "right in land" - refer written submissions para 1.4 and 1.5 (j)Section 92B Explanation (ii)(i) - leasehold (k)Section 33A - Explanation below sub-section (8) The above are only instances where the two words have been used either separately or in the same clause Thus, the word "leasehold rights" is not alien to the Income

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

54G, Section 24 of the General Clauses Act would apply, and the notification of 1967, declaring Thane to be an urban area, would be continued under and for the purposes of Section 54A. 14. When such are the views of Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of validity of notifications in respect of amendment in law by re-enactment

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

PARVINCHAND N. SEHGAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

disallowed and the capital gain computed by the assessee to the tune of Rs.2,47,48,087/- was assessed as Long Term Capital gain on sale of property and the total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,93,58,620/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the addition

ACIT -893) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIPLE SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

54G and 54GA use the expression „land or building or any right in land or building‟. Therefore, the scope of deeming fiction contained in Section 43CA of the act would apply only in the case of transfer of asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both and the same cannot be extended to cover any right

HEMDENDRA K. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

disallowance of expenses. 2. The assessee is an individual and is engaged in share broking and is also dealing in shares and securities. The first issue relates to the rejection of claim for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The assessee sold a residential flat for a consideration of Rs.233.10 lakhs on 28-02-2012. The assessee computed long term

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

THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAURI TANDON, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleacit – 15(1)(1) V. Gauri Tandon Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tandon Beach House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(Pt), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Aaapb4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Smiti Samant

54G, 54GA, Large Value Transactions, Large Value of Commodity Exchange transactions, Large long term capital gains and High ratio of refund to TDS. Accordingly, notices 143(2) and 142(1) of Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) were issued and served on the assessee. In response, authorised representative of the assessee attended and filed relevant information as called

EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 1 , THANE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

disallowance disallowance disallowance of of of provision provision provision of of of enhanced enhanced enhanced rent rent rent amounting amounting amounting to to to Rs.16,03,927/-. The . The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee had taken land on lease from Calcutta Port Trust

DCIT, CIRCLE-1 ,, THANE vs. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

disallowance disallowance disallowance of of of provision provision provision of of of enhanced enhanced enhanced rent rent rent amounting amounting amounting to to to Rs.16,03,927/-. The . The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee had taken land on lease from Calcutta Port Trust