ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, 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

47) (v) with Sec 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 clearly states that once ingress to Transfer of Property Act, 1882 clearly states that once ingress to Transfer of Property Act, 1882 clearly states that once ingress to the property is handed over to the transferee i.e. Vidhi the property is handed over to the transferee i.e. Vidhi

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ii).\nProgressive Homes Vs. ACIT [ITA No.5082 /Mum/2016, dated\n16.05.2018]. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the\nconsidered view that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely\ncovered in favour of the assessee. It may also be relevant and pertinent to\npoint out that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

47(ii) was subsequently omitted by the Finance Act of 1987 with effect from 1-4-1988. Simultaneously, sub-section (4) of section 45 came to be inserted by the same Finance Act. Sub-section (4) of section 45 provides that profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

47(ii) was subsequently omitted by the Finance Act of 1987 with effect from 1-4-1988. Simultaneously, sub-section (4) of section 45 came to be inserted by the same Finance Act. Sub-section (4) of section 45 provides that profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

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

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

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

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

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

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

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

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

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

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

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

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

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

house under section (in Rupees) property 10 (38) of the act on (in account of Rupees) allegedly bogus long- term capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ii).\nProgressive Homes Vs. ACIT [ITA No.5082 /Mum/2016, dated\n16.05.2018]. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the\nconsidered view that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely\ncovered in favour of the assessee. It may also be relevant and pertinent to\npoint out that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ii).\nProgressive Homes Vs. ACIT [ITA No.5082 /Mum/2016, dated\n16.05.2018]. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the\nconsidered view that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely\ncovered in favour of the assessee. It may also be relevant and pertinent to\npoint out that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

ii).\nProgressive Homes Vs. ACIT [ITA No.5082 /Mum/2016, dated\n16.05.2018]. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the\nconsidered view that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely\ncovered in favour of the assessee. It may also be relevant and pertinent to\npoint out that the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal in the case

ITO 20(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. SHEHAB SULTAN BOHRA, MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3171/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shehab S.Bohra Income Tax Officer 20(3)(3) Flat No. 1202, 12Th Floor Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Yash Height Chsl Parel Nesbit Road Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Near Union Bank Of India Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

House Property Income and Capital Gain was assessed u/s 143(3) for impugned AY on Shehab S.Bohra Assessment Year-2010-11 13/03/2013 at Rs.2,49,06,890/- as against returned income of Rs.1,450/- filed by the assessee on 23/11/2010. 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of Annual Information Return [AIR] information, it was noted that the assessee had sold 2 properties

SHEHAB S BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(3)(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3171/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shehab S.Bohra Income Tax Officer 20(3)(3) Flat No. 1202, 12Th Floor Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Yash Height Chsl Parel Nesbit Road Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Near Union Bank Of India Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

House Property Income and Capital Gain was assessed u/s 143(3) for impugned AY on Shehab S.Bohra Assessment Year-2010-11 13/03/2013 at Rs.2,49,06,890/- as against returned income of Rs.1,450/- filed by the assessee on 23/11/2010. 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of Annual Information Return [AIR] information, it was noted that the assessee had sold 2 properties

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

2,18,64,717/- as related to earning of rental income during the relevant previous year and thereby reduced the annual letting value (ALV). The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid expenses in the computation of business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

2,18,64,717/- as related to earning of rental income during the relevant previous year and thereby reduced the annual letting value (ALV). The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid expenses in the computation of business income and allowed the same while computing the ALV, Hence the ALV was revised from