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

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

2 (general definitions under the Act) nor section 27 (definitions relating to income from house property). Rather it is defined nowhere in the Act. In such a scenario, we will have to understand its connotation in common parlance. The term `occupation' (in land law) has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Law to mean `the physical possession and control

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

2 (general definitions under the Act) nor section 27 (definitions relating to income from house property). Rather it is defined nowhere in the Act. In such a scenario, we will have to understand its connotation in common parlance. The term `occupation' (in land law) has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Law to mean `the physical possession and control

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

2 (general definitions under the Act) nor section 27 (definitions relating to income from house property). Rather it is defined nowhere in the Act. In such a scenario, we will have to understand its connotation in common parlance. The term `occupation' (in land law) has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Law to mean `the physical possession and control

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

2 (general definitions under the Act) nor section 27 (definitions relating to income from house property). Rather it is defined nowhere in the Act. In such a scenario, we will have to understand its connotation in common parlance. The term `occupation' (in land law) has been defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Law to mean `the physical possession and control

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

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

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021, which further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration, particularly in cases involving specified transactions. The addition of Rs. 3,26,58,000/- is in line with the statutory provisions and should have been upheld

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROMELL HOUSING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the\nRevenue's Appeal is dismissed

Housing LLP,\n101, B-Wing, Gharkul Co-op. Society,\nAzad Road, Vile Parle East,\nMumbai - 400057,\nMaharashtra\nPAN: AATFR3895F\nCross Objector\n(Original Respondent)\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle – 4(4),\nMumbai - 400021,\nMaharashtra\nVS.\nRespondent\n(Original Appellant)\nAssessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi\nRevenue by :Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing – 25/09/2024\nDate of Order

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

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

2)(a) since the value assessed by the stamp\nvaluation authorities exceeded the fair market value of the property as\nshown in the approved valuer's report.He did not appreciate that Section\n50C does not apply to sale of assets forming part of Block of Assets.\nProvisions of section 50 as well a section 50C are mutually disjoint\nprovisions

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

50C 2 Kenneth M. Misquitta 1.1) The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO was justified in Considering the market value at Rs. 2,01,57,500/- as against the value of Rs. 1,96,07,000/- adopted by the appellant. 1.2) The Learned CIT(A) ought to have held that as the difference between the value adopted

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021,\nwhich further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the\ndifference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration, particularly\nin cases involving specified transactions. The addition of Rs.3,26,58,000/- is in line\nwith the statutory provisions and should have been upheld

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)

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

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery. 2. A perusal of the provisions of sections 5, 122, 123 of TOPA indicate that there do not seem to be any restriction on the corporate transfer of shares by way of gift. There is no requirement in TOPA that a 'gift

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery. 2. A perusal of the provisions of sections 5, 122, 123 of TOPA indicate that there do not seem to be any restriction on the corporate transfer of shares by way of gift. There is no requirement in TOPA that a 'gift