DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

properties in respect of unsold units held by the assessee as its stock in trade without appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of S. G. Mercantile Corpn. (P) Ltd us C.I.T. AIR 1972 SC 732 and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RUSTOMJEE EVERSHINE JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

properties in respect of unsold units held by the assessee as its stock in trade without appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of S. G. Mercantile Corpn. (P) Ltd us C.I.T. AIR 1972 SC 732 and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

151 (Madras) wherein the expression “a residential house” was interpreted to mean more than one or plural residential houses. The relevant ratio of the decision is given below: “21. In our understanding, if the word 'a' as employed under Section 54 prior to its amendment and substitution by the words 'one' with effect from 01.04.2015 could not include plural units

DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAKESH S KATHOTIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Housing Development Company (supra), relied upon by Ld. AO does not hold good. 2. Further, merely because SLP has been admitted in Apex Court, there is no guarantee that decision in admitted SLP shall be in favour of the revenue. In this respect, Delhi High Court decision in Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 82 taxman.com 287/248 taxman 384/395

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

housing finance, asset management, brokerage, wealth advisory and health insurance. The entire share capital of the resulting company is directly and indirectly held by the Transferor Company.” (Emphasis supplied) 5.4 Clause C of the Scheme (Pg. No. 27 of Vol I FPB) explains the Rationale behind the Arrangement. The same is reproduced hereunder: “(a) the proposed restructuring will create

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

housing finance, asset management, brokerage, wealth advisory and health insurance. The entire share capital of the resulting company is directly and indirectly held by the Transferor Company.” (Emphasis supplied) 5.4 Clause C of the Scheme (Pg. No. 27 of Vol I FPB) explains the Rationale behind the Arrangement. The same is reproduced hereunder: “(a) the proposed restructuring will create

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

151 Taxman 41\n(Del. HC)- Action under section 147 is permissible even if Assessing\nOfficer gathered his reasons to believe from very same record as had\nbeen subject-matter of completed assessment proceedings. Further,\nthe principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for\nreopening completed assessments would have no application where\norder of assessment does

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

151 Тахтап 41\n(Del. HC)- Action under section 147 is permissible even if Assessing\nOfficer gathered his reasons to believe from very same record as had\nbeen subject-matter of completed assessment proceedings. Further,\nthe principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for\nreopening completed assessments would have no application where\norder of assessment does

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

2. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. 1281/Kol/2015 1281/Kol/2015 3. Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 P Ltd, Vs. ACIT

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

2. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. Adhunik Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Vs. JCIT, ITA No. 1281/Kol/2015 1281/Kol/2015 3. Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 296 P Ltd, Vs. ACIT

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

151 Тахтап 41\n(Del. HC)- Action under section 147 is permissible even if Assessing\nOfficer gathered his reasons to believe from very same record as had\nbeen subject-matter of completed assessment proceedings. Further,\nthe principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for\nreopening completed assessments would have no application where\norder of assessment does

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

151 Taxman 41\n(Del. HC)- Action under section 147 is permissible even if Assessing\nOfficer gathered his reasons to believe from very same record as had\nbeen subject-matter of completed assessment proceedings. Further,\nthe principle that a mere change of opinion cannot be a basis for\nreopening completed assessments would have no application where\norder of assessment does

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

housing loan from UBI & SBI totaling to Rs. 4,07,59,381/- as allowable deduction and interest paid on the loan taken from Bank of Baroda of Rs. 76,66,066/- was disallowed. 4.1. Proceeding further, the AO found that the assessee has purchased flat at 18th Floor in Lodha Costerja and on perusal of the details, the AO found

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

151.\n(3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served\nis a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163\nand the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in\npursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such\nnon-resident, the notice

RATAN N MOTWANI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

Housing Society Ltd. as no confirmed was filed by the assessee, the amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- earlier was treated as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.08.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised as many

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. PAN: AAACT-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar

DCIT CENT. CIR -4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. INORBIT MALLS (INDIA ) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2220/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Central Cir-4(2) M/S. Inorbit Malls P.Ltd Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Plot No.C-30,Bnlock-G, Air India Bldg, Nariman Opp Sidbi Bank, Bkc, Point Mumbai 400021 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai 400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaack9106G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ganesh Bare, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

151,13,53,919/- out of which, it has received advances in respect of properties to the extent of Rs 39,12,96,068/-. The net unsold units with the assessee in closing stock was Rs 112,00,57,852/-. The Assessing Officer relying upon the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Ansal Housing Finance

SHRI VIPUL OTARMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 19.3.1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

House, ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400004 PAN : AABPJ3246L v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 19(3)(1) Piramal Chamber, Near Bharatmata Cinema, ……………. Respondent Parel, Mumbai – 400012 Assessee by : Shri Hansraj Sanghvi Revenue by : Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, SR. DR Date of Hearing – 02/04/2026 Date of Order – 08/04/2026 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal

M/S SANOFI INDIA LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AVENTIS PHARMA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

2 to 8). Copy of the order is placed on record. 68. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the submissions of the Ld.AR. 69. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2002-03. While deciding the issue