ACIT 18(2), MUMBAI vs. KESHAV & COMPANY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaita No. : 5639/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Vs Keshav & Company, Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), B-607, Arihant Bldg., 6Th Floor, Sudha Park, Vashi Railway Station, Behind Garodia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400 077 Pan:Aacpk 1625 P ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Vs Keshav & Company, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai -400 077 ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) C.O. No. 273/Mum/2013 Arising Out Of Ita No.6276/Mum/2012, Ay-2006-07 Keshav & Company, Vs Ito –Ward-22(1)(4), Mumbai -400 077 Vashi, Navi Mumbai ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) Assessee "ी राजन वोहरा : Shri Rajan Vohra Cross Objector By "ी बी पृसेठ Shri B Pruseth Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 13-07-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-09-2016

Section 45(4) of the I.T. Act? Or Whether the retiring partner would be liable to pay for the capital gains?” Relevant facts and case of the revenue were as under:- “4. M/s Dynamic Enterprises-the respondent herein is a partnership firm which came into existence on 09.01.1985 with Sri Anurag Jain and Sri Nirmal Kumar Dugar as its partners

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)

45(4) of the Act profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of person or body of individuals(not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise , shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm

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)

45(4) of the Act profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of person or body of individuals(not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise , shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm

MAHUL CONSTRUCTOIN CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Mahul Construction Income Tax Officer, Corporation Ward 31(2)(3), M/S Thar & Co. Chartered Room No. 704, C-11, Accountants, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. 203, Capri, Opp. Hdil Tower, Bnadra Kurla Complex, Anant Kanekar Mar, Bandra Bandra (East), (East), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 051 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aamfm5810E

Housing Development & 45 Infrastructure Limited 5. M/s Man Maya Developers Private 10 Limited 6 M/s Vision Finstock Private Limited 20 7 M/s Nisha Capital Service Pvt. Ltd. 10 4 Muhul Construction Corporation (A.Y. 09-10) After introduction of HDIL as partner, the assessee firm to ascertain the market value of this plot at Mahul, appointed a valuer M/s Vinod Gandhi

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

house property ) 3 Profits and gains 28 29 (under the head 'Income from profits of business or and gains of business or profession, how profession computed'). Section 29 provides that it has to be computed in accordance with provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D. 4 Capital gains 45

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

45,975/- on 12.8.2011 in the name of the builder of the property purchased by the assessee.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual earning income from salary, house property, interest and capital gain. During course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(2) of 1961 Act, the assessee was asked to furnish

ELECTROPLAST ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 45(4) of the I.T. Act? Or 8 Electroplast Engineers Whether the retiring partner would be liable to pay for the capital gains?” Relevant facts and case of the revenue were as under :- “4. M/s Dynamic Enterprises-the respondent herein is a partnership firm which came into existence on 09.01.1985 with Sri Anurag Jain and Sri Nirmal Kumar Dugar

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 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)

45. The provision of section 23(l)(c) of the Act clearly lays down that in case where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less

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)

45. The provision of section 23(l)(c) of the Act clearly lays down that in case where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less

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)

45. The provision of section 23(l)(c) of the Act clearly lays down that in case where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less

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)

45. The provision of section 23(l)(c) of the Act clearly lays down that in case where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less

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)

45. The provision of section 23(l)(c) of the Act clearly lays down that in case where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less

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)

45. The provision of section 23(l)(c) of the Act clearly lays down that in case where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less

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)

45. The provision of section 23(l)(c) of the Act clearly lays down that in case where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less

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)

45. The provision of section 23(l)(c) of the Act clearly lays down that in case where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less

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)

45. The provision of section 23(l)(c) of the Act clearly lays down that in case where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owing to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less

RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

4), where. in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family] the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this Section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or [two years] after

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

property and claimed deduction u/s 1,09,83,090 1,09,83,090 54F Invested in Capital gains scheme on 21.05.2012 and Invested in Capital gains scheme on 21.05.2012 and 4,66,72,042 4,66,72,042 claimed deduction u/s 54F claimed deduction u/s 54F Invested in NHAI bonds Invested in NHAI bonds on 30.09.2011 u/s 54EC

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

4 of the appeal. 044. Per Ground no 5, assessee has also raised an issue that no notice under section 143 (2) was issued by the new incumbent. This was raised as per ground number 5 of the appeal memo. The learned authorized representative specifically referred to page number 45 of his fact sheet. The claim of the learned authorized