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

ACIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Properties Ltd [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Developer’]. As per the said Development Agreement, the Assessee had agreed to transfer development rights in a piece of land at Village Deonar, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai held by the Assessee as capital asset. The Developer acquired exclusive rights and authority to develop the aforesaid piece of land by constructing thereon residential buildings

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

50D of the Act, which are neither applicable to the year\nunder consideration nor attracted where the consideration for transfer of the\nasset is 'determinable' or 'nil',\nITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) 3\n1.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO has erred in applying the GAAR provisions prescribed under

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

50D of the Act, which are neither applicable to the year\nunder consideration nor attracted where the consideration for transfer of the\nasset is 'determinable' or 'nil';\nITAs No.671 & 1634/Ahd/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n1.6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO has erred in applying the GAAR provisions prescribed under section

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. GUPTA C K , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-17(1) Gupta C K O/O The Government Of India 21, K. T. Building, O/O The Dy. Cit Cirr 17(1), Devji Ratansey Marg, Masjid Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Room No. 117, Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051

50D of the Act and relied on the CBDT Circular No. 3rd March, 2016 for deferment of tax. The contention of the assessee has not been satisfactory to the ld. A.O. who then passed the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 making an addition towards conversion of ‘capital gain’ to ‘business income’ of Rs.21,01,86,798/-. The ld. A.O. also disallowed

JIOSTAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16 (1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

House, Urmi Estate, Vs. Mumbai 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013 Maharashtra PAN : AAACN1335Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue by Shri Vinod Tanwani Date of hearing 09-05-2023 Date of pronouncement 05-06-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : The Hon’ble President