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

section 50C are not applicable on transfer of provisions of section 50C are not applicable on transfer of provisions of section 50C are not applicable on transfer of development rights. The said finding of the Ld CIT(A) is reproduced ts. The said finding of the Ld CIT(A) is reproduced ts. The said finding

ANUSUYA H. DAVE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal in ITA no 1038/Mum/2013 is allowed while the appeals in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Amit Shukla () & Ramit Kochar ()

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, the transfer of the property is complete even though the conveyance deed is not executed. As per provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer is defined in relation to transaction involving the possession of immovable property is transfer in part performance of the contract. The money which

RAJIV D. DAVE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal in ITA no 1038/Mum/2013 is allowed while the appeals in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Amit Shukla () & Ramit Kochar ()

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, the transfer of the property is complete even though the conveyance deed is not executed. As per provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer is defined in relation to transaction involving the possession of immovable property is transfer in part performance of the contract. The money which

DR. DEVENDRA H. DAVE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 11(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal in ITA no 1038/Mum/2013 is allowed while the appeals in ITA no

Bench: S/Shri Amit Shukla () & Ramit Kochar ()

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, the transfer of the property is complete even though the conveyance deed is not executed. As per provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer is defined in relation to transaction involving the possession of immovable property is transfer in part performance of the contract. The money which

NAHALCHAND LALOOCHAND P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 27 of the Act is elaborated in the following portion of the Department Circular No. 495 dated 22 September 1987. Enlarging the meaning of ownership of house property 23.1 The Amending Act has extended the meaning of the expression "ownership" for the purpose of computing income under the head "Income from house property". The expression "ownership" meaning legal ownership

SANE & DOSHI ENTERPARISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term for which

ITO 20(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. SHEHAB SULTAN BOHRA, MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3171/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shehab S.Bohra Income Tax Officer 20(3)(3) Flat No. 1202, 12Th Floor Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Yash Height Chsl Parel Nesbit Road Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Near Union Bank Of India Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

House Property Income and Capital Gain was assessed u/s 143(3) for impugned AY on Shehab S.Bohra Assessment Year-2010-11 13/03/2013 at Rs.2,49,06,890/- as against returned income of Rs.1,450/- filed by the assessee on 23/11/2010. 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of Annual Information Return [AIR] information, it was noted that the assessee had sold 2 properties

SHEHAB S BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(3)(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3171/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shehab S.Bohra Income Tax Officer 20(3)(3) Flat No. 1202, 12Th Floor Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Yash Height Chsl Parel Nesbit Road Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Near Union Bank Of India Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

House Property Income and Capital Gain was assessed u/s 143(3) for impugned AY on Shehab S.Bohra Assessment Year-2010-11 13/03/2013 at Rs.2,49,06,890/- as against returned income of Rs.1,450/- filed by the assessee on 23/11/2010. 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of Annual Information Return [AIR] information, it was noted that the assessee had sold 2 properties

ITO 2(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WALCHAND PEOPLE FIRST LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and shall be deemed to be the owner of the property u/s 27(iii)(b) of the Act for the purposes of computing under the head ‘Income from House

WALCHAND PEOPLE FIRST LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 2(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2543/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and shall be deemed to be the owner of the property u/s 27(iii)(b) of the Act for the purposes of computing under the head ‘Income from House

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, MUMBAI

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

house property by adopting 8% of cost of construction as ALV as against Municipal ratable value adopted by the assessee. It has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT reported in [2009] 310 ITR 310 that the A.O. should not take advantage of the assessee’s ignorance of law. Since

MR. MAHESH D. SAINI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-35(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1929/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Mr. Mahesh D. Saini बिधम/ Ito, Ward-35(2)(3) 203, Lukhi Niwas Kailash Room No. 745, 7Th Floor, Vs. Puri, Upper Govind Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Plot No. 135, Malad (E), C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai-400097. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps1048M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haresh B. Shah Revenue By: Dr. Pratap Narayan Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/08/2022 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 (Appeals)-46, Mumbai Dated 28.02.2020 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,05,37,002/- As Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Treating The Purported Capital Asset As Transfer In View Of The Provisions Of Section 2(47) (V) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) R.W. Section 53A Of The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (4 Of 1882) (Hereinafter In Short As “Topa”). 3. Brief Facts Of The Case As Noted By The Ld. Cit(A) Is That The Ao Noticed That During The Year, The Assessee Jointly With His Two (2) Brothers, Viz Shri Formal Dedrajmali Alias Sainik/Siani & Shri Kailash Dedraj Mali Alias Sainik/Saini, Entered Into Sale Cum

house property of 2500 sq. feet built up area wall to wall flats to the assessee as well as his brother. Therefore, the transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A

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. Therefore, the question arises for consideration is whether the property acquired by the assessee by means of perpetual lease for unlimited period would amount to purchase within the meaning of Section 54F of the Act? We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 2(47) of the Act and also 269UA

PRERAK GOEL,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -19, MUMBAI

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

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act On perusal of the assessment records it is noticed that the assessee has submitted computation of income of his mother, ITR acknowledgment of his mother, however, in the computation of income she has declared income from salary, income from property house

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. RIA LABORATORIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7656/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income- M/S Ria Laboratories Pvt. बनाम/ Tax -10(2), Ltd., V. Room No. 432, 4 Th Floor, 24, Shree Diamond Aayakar Bhavan, Centre, M.K. Road, Lbs Marg, Mumbai 400 020. Vikhroli West, Mumbai- 400 083. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadcr2622R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). The assessee company submitted that it has taken the immovable property (plot) on lease for a period of 95 years. As per the provisions of section 27(iiib) read with clause (f) of section 269UA of the Act, where the period of lease is not less than 12 years

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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act is satisfied. Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the lower authorities on this issue. As far as, demerits attacked to the property are concerned, the DVO has, already taken into account all aspects while making the valuation of the property. The assessee has participated

K T DONGRE & CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S. K.T. Dongre & Co. P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1) C/O. Shyam Malpani & Assocaites Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 307, Chartered House Vs. Mumbai 400020 297/299, Dr. C.H. Street Mumbai 400002 Pan – Aaack9366J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Gopal Respondent By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-21, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2013 & It Relates To A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: - “1. The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred As "Cit (A)") Has Erred Confirming The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Making Addition Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,90,67,850/- Based On Agreement For Sale Dated 12.10.2007 Entered Into With M/S. Nensee Construction Pvt. Ltd. Inspite Of The Fact That There Is No Performance On The Part Of The Concerned Parties In Relation To The Such Agreement Of Sale. Therefore, There Is No Transfer Or Deemed Transfer Within The Meaning Of Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Question Of Taxing Such Capital Gains Which Had Not Been Accrued Or Deemed To Had Been Accrued Does Not Arise. Such Long Term Capital Gain Has Been Worked Out By Considering The Sale Consideration At Rs.5,34,02,500/- As Against Agreement Price Of Rs.1,80,00,000/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Utter Disregard To The Pending Litigations I.E. The Company Petition No.809 Of 2003 Filed By An Alleged Creditor For Winding Up Of The Assessee Company & Also A Cloud In The Title Due

House Vs. Mumbai 400020 297/299, Dr. C.H. Street Mumbai 400002 PAN – AAACK9366J Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri K. Gopal Respondent by: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of Hearing: 30.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-21, Mumbai dated

USHA MANOHAR SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Usha Manohar Shetty, Acit 18(3) 132 Marble Arch बनाम/ R.No.209, 2Nd Floor, Senapati Bapa Tmarg, Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Mahim Mumbai -400012 Mumbai-400016 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Abbps2235F Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram(Ar) Revenue By Shri Santosh Mankoskar (Dr)

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882(4 of 1882) Explanation- for the purpose of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term