SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIECLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT in ITA No.2927/Mum/2019 dated 13/05/2021. 3.3. Respectfully following the same, we delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards deemed notional rental income in respect of unsold flats held as ‘stock in trade’. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs.35,79,549/- towards notional rent is hereby directed

JAI HIND CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

section 50C was ever raised by the AO at all. The limited issue raised in the assessment order was with regard to determination of cost of the impugned property. The Society had claimed total cost of acquisition of the impugned plot of land at Rs.60,01,030/- whereas, the AO determined the same at nil 14 Co.Op. Housing

VITHALNAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

section 50C was ever raised by the AO at all. The limited issue raised in the assessment order was with regard to determination of cost of the impugned property. The Society had claimed total cost of acquisition of the impugned plot of land at Rs.60,01,030/- whereas, the AO determined the same at nil 14 Co.Op. Housing

SUVARNA NAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

section 50C was ever raised by the AO at all. The limited issue raised in the assessment order was with regard to determination of cost of the impugned property. The Society had claimed total cost of acquisition of the impugned plot of land at Rs.60,01,030/- whereas, the AO determined the same at nil 14 Co.Op. Housing

THE AZAD NAGAR, COOPERATIVE HOUSING, SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

section 50C was ever raised by the AO at all. The limited issue raised in the assessment order was with regard to determination of cost of the impugned property. The Society had claimed total cost of acquisition of the impugned plot of land at Rs.60,01,030/- whereas, the AO determined the same at nil 14 Co.Op. Housing

THE NAVYUG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

section 50C was ever raised by the AO at all. The limited issue raised in the assessment order was with regard to determination of cost of the impugned property. The Society had claimed total cost of acquisition of the impugned plot of land at Rs.60,01,030/- whereas, the AO determined the same at nil 14 Co.Op. Housing

VALLABHNAGAR OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

section 50C was ever raised by the AO at all. The limited issue raised in the assessment order was with regard to determination of cost of the impugned property. The Society had claimed total cost of acquisition of the impugned plot of land at Rs.60,01,030/- whereas, the AO determined the same at nil 14 Co.Op. Housing

RADHARAMAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Radharaman Constructions Asst. Cit, Circle – 19(3), Ground Floor, Shri Kunj, Mumbai 3A Altamount Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 026

property, to escape the vigil of section 50C of the Act would defeat the aforementioned intent in a substantial way leading to the emasculation of the said section. The appellant has pointed out that section 50C of the Act was a deeming fiction and, hence, ought to be given a restricted, strict meaning. No doubt the provision is a deeming

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ANILKUMAR JAGDISHRAJ SETH , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit, Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth, 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal Flat No. 1201, Jeevan Satya Co-Op. Vs. Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Housing Society, 15Th Road, Plot No. Mumbai-400012. 411, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aobps 8150 E Appellant Respondent

Housing Society, 15th Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Plot No. 411, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. PAN NO. AOBPS 8150 E Appellant Respondent : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR : 23/10/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 28/10/2024 Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth Anil Kumar Jagdishraj Seth 2 3378/MUM/2024 & CO No. 137/M/24 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH

FARID GULMOHAMED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farid Gulmohamed Income Tax Officer C/O. M/S. B.C. Dastur & Co. (Internationla Tax) 3(1) Vs. Reliance Bldg., 3Rd Floor Schindia House, Ballard Estate 269, D.N. Road, Mumbai Mumbai 400038 Pan - Aefpg3094K Appellant Respondent

House, Ballard Estate 269, D.N. Road, Mumbai Mumbai 400038 PAN - AEFPG3094K Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Dharmesh Shah Assessee by: Shri Javed Akhtar Date of Hearing: 29.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 16.03.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 10, Mumbai dated

GOBINDRAM JAGDISH KAKWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property” and “income from other sources”. 4. As per the reasons for reopening, during Financial Year 2010-11, assessee had sold the property bearing No. 5 in building No. 144 and bearing No. 155, Indian Complex Gundavli, Tal. Bhiwandi vide agreement dated 31.01.2011 for sale consideration of ₹.52,50,000/-. In this regard assessee was asked to file

PRATAP RATAN DAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1272/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

properties. (180 Taxman 253 Mad). The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Mumbai in the case of Bhatia Nagar Premises Co operative Housing Society vs. UOI (Date of order 19.8.2ala) upheld applicability of section 50C

MOHAMEDALI H CHARANIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2007-08 Mr. Mohamedali H. Charania, C/O. M/S. Hasanali Virjee & Sons, Vs. 305, Gulab Bldg, 237, The Income Tax Officer, P.D’ Mello Road, -12(1)(2), Opp: G.P.O. Mumbai Mumbai [Pan : Aacpc0710B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and bonds u/s.54EC of the Act, while the assessee did not have any taxable capital gains based on actual sale consideration; but the Assessing Officer invoked Section 50C

AXIA INFOSERVE LLP,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

Housing Society Ltd. situated at C.S.T. No.369, Tulsiwadi Road, Tardeo, Mumbai for a consideration of ₹.3,25,00,000/- from its partners Mrs. Sonal Jiten Page No. | 2 Axia Infoserve LLP Choksey and Mrs. Sonal Jiten Choksey and assessee had paid stamp duty on the value of ₹.3,34,30,500/-. 4. Further, assessee furnished copy of 'Supplementary Agreement showing

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

house but only acquired perpetual tenancy, deduction u/s. 54F was not allowable. 3.2) The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a 'Perpetual Tenant' enjoys all the rights of an owner of the Property and is therefore, entitled to deduction u/s. 54F 4) The appellant craves leave to add to, delete, modify or alter any of the grounds of appeal

ACIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI vs. DATTANI DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5075/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Acit – 25(3), M/S Dattani Development, बनाम/ C-11, R. No. 308, 100, Shreeji Darshan, V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, 1St Floor, S.V. Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Kandivali (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 067. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabfd4969Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 50C of the Act is applicable only in respect of transfer of capital assets being land or building or both registered by sale deed and it is not applicable for transfer of tenancy rights, though the same is capital asset but not being capital asset i.e. land or building or both. The learned CIT(A) considered the submission

WHITE ROSE HOLDINGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 White Rose Holdings (India) Pvt.Ltd. Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor C/O. Mandhania & Associates Vs. 6-A Pil Court Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 111, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan Aaacw0478K (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 50C of the Act qua property which is not registered at all in the name of the assessee is totally 7 ITNo.7395/Mum/2017 wrong and against he provisions of the Act. The Ld. AR while briefing on the facts submitted that the assessee entered into an agreement on 04/07/1996 for the purchase of said property known as Sharma house