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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

1) of the Act, granting other deductions, also uses similar expression - `for the purposes of the business or profession'. This has been interpreted to be wider in its scope vis-à-vis the expression `for the purpose of making or earning such income' as used in section 57(iii), providing deduction under the head `Income from other sources'. Reverting

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

1) of the Act, granting other deductions, also uses similar expression - `for the purposes of the business or profession'. This has been interpreted to be wider in its scope vis-à-vis the expression `for the purpose of making or earning such income' as used in section 57(iii), providing deduction under the head `Income from other sources'. Reverting

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

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)

1) of section 50C, for the purpose of computation of capital gain, the value assessed by Stamp Duty Valuation Authority should be the full value of the consideration received as a result of transfer of the property. In view of the above discussion, the AO was correct in adopting the assessed value of Rs.69,32,000/-, as assessed

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

house property at Kolkata was\nvalued Rs 11,55,19,784/- by stamp value authorities.The valuation report\nclearly showed that the property was old since it was purchased in 1996\nand heavy repairs were needed.The assessee proposed to make a distress\nsale at lesser value of Rs 7 cr. to one Deepak Builder P.Ltd.The property\nconsisted of 32 flats. Copy

GLORY SHIPMANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] …………… Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule Date Conclusion of hearing : 28.12.2023 Pronouncement of order : 30.01.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal

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

property in question is not of the nature covered by section 50C(1) of the Act. Therefore, on this point itself, we set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.” 21. To the same effect are decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case

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

1. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 76,66,066/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was related to the excess interest claimed by the assessee under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act and the interest claimed was not exclusively linked

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

1,96,07,000/- and Rs. 2,01,57,500/- is less than 5%. The ld. AR therefore, submitted that the 3rd proviso to section 50C which states that when the stamp duty value does not exceed 5% then the actual consideration received shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration, shall be applicable in assessee's case

ACIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGALPRABHAT GUMANMAL LODHA , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

housing loan from UBI & SBI\ntotaling to Rs.4,07,59,381/- as allowable deduction and interest paid on\nthe loan taken from Bank of Baroda of Rs.76,66,066/- was disallowed.\n4. 1. Proceeding further, the AO found that the assessee has purchased\nflat at 18th Floor in Lodha Costerja and on perusal of the details, the AO\nfound that

MR. SURESH SHANTILAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

House, NFAC 13/21, 1st Dhobi Talao Lane, ITO-Ward 16(3)(1), Vs. Kalbadevi, Room No.444, Mumbai Aayakar Bhawan, Maharashtra – 400 002 Maqharshi Karve Road, PAN: AABPJ4074G Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI vs. GAURAV INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

house property and from business & profession. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2019, declaring a total income of Rs.2,95,31,700/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings

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

DCIT - 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORARTION LTD., MUMBAI

housing as well as \ndevelopment of infrastructure facility in India. In aggregation, deduction \nclaimed is restricted to special reserve so created in the year. According \nto the assessee, it qualifies as a “specified entity” for the purpose of \nclause (a) of Explanation to section 36(1)(viii), falling within sub-clause \n(vi) as “any other financial corporation including

AMSONS STEEL PVT LTD.,THANE vs. DCIT CIR-6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.970/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Amsons Steel Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-6(1)(1) Plot No. A/16, Wagle Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Industrial Estate, Road Road, Mumbai-400020. No.8, Thane-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca4716G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Bekal Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 06.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering Fair Market Value Of The Properties As On 30.05.2013 Determined By The District Valuation Officer-1, It Deptt, Mumbai-12 Vide His Report Dated 21.02.2019 As Against Stamp Duty Value Adopted By Learned Assessing Officer Even Through Your Appellant Sold At Prevailing Market Rate At Arm’S Length Principle. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well In Law The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Giving The Benefit Of Curative Amendment Inserted In Section 43 Ca By Finance Act, 2018 W.E.F. 01.04.2019 & Subsequently Finance Act, 2020 W.E.F.

50C of the Act and the provision of section 23A and 24(5) of the Wealth Tax Act held as under:- “13. A combined reading of the above provisions shows that the valuation adopted by the DVO is subject to appeal and the same is not final. In the instant case we find that as Against the value

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house property at Kolkata was\nvalued Rs 11,55,19,784/- by stamp value authorities.The valuation report\nclearly showed that the property was old since it was purchased in 1996\nand heavy repairs were needed.The assessee proposed to make a distress\nsale at lesser value of Rs 7 cr. to one Deepak Builder P.Ltd.The property\nconsisted of 32 flats. Copy

DCIT 42 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR TRILOKNATH GOYAL, MUMBAI

Accordingly\nwe see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) who has deleted the\naddition made by the AO under section 43CA of the Act.\n16.\nIn result, appeal filed by the revenue i...

House, Mumbai-400004\nPAN: AAPFM2768N\n13.02.20\n10,00,000\n14.02.20\n15,00,000\n25.02.20\n10,00,000\n26.02.20\n10,00,000\n25.08.20\n10,00,000\n28.09.20\n10,00,000\n09.12.20\n20,00,000\n09.12.20