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

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

AKSHAY JANAK SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NFAC, DELHI

house was more than the Appellant‟s share in the sale consideration arising from sale of Capital Asset and therefore, the Appellant had claimed exemption from long term capital gains under Section 54F of the Act. Disclosure in this regard was made in the return of income filed by the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2013-14 which has been

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed quashing reopening of assessment and deleting addition on the merits

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Standard Chartered Bank The Dy. Director Of Income- Crescenzo, Tax(International Taxation)- 7Th Floor, C38-39, 2(1), Vs. G Block Bandra Kurla Complex , 1St Floor, Scindia House, Bandra East N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 038 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs4681D Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

House, Bandra East N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 038 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AABCS4681D Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Milind Chavan, DR Date of hearing : 08.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 27.01.2022 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. This appeal filed by Standard Chartered Bank [ The Assessee/ Appellant] for Assessment Year 2005-06 against

SHRI GANADHIRAJ CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) -40, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 was entered amongst the parties in the assessment year 2001–02 and therefore the property cannot be said to M/s. Shri Ganadhiraj Co– Operative Housing

SHEHROZ ZAKIR HUSAIN MALIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 26(3)(20, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late Sh. Shehrozzakir Husain Malik Income Tax Officer-26(3)(2), Through Legal Heir Shahbazshehroz Malik, Pratyakshakar, C-11, 1307, Rcs & Associates Mayuresh Cosmos Vs. Bandrakurla Complex, Tower, Sarovarvihar Road, Sector-11, Cbd Bandra East, Belapur, Mumbai-400051. Navi Mumbai-400614. Pan No. Aagpm 4512 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Neeraj Mangla, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

Housing Society bid passed on 04.10.2014 for which the assessee did not acquired the new property. In view of this, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was not entitled to claim the exemption u/s. 54 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer further observed that, as per the submission, [assessee along with two co-purchasers namely Saeed

SANJAY BABAN VAITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10

House, Deonar Vashi Railway Station Complex, Village, Sion Trombay Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400706. Mumbai-400088. PAN NO. ABOPV 3710 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Shekhar Gupta Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05/02/2024 : Date of pronouncement 05/02/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order

ACIT 30(3), MUMBAI vs. SURATCHANDRA B. THAKKAR -HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-30(3), Shri Suratchandra B. Thakkar C-13, 5Th Floor, R. No. 510, (Huf), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tipco Compound, Rani Sati Bandra (East), Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aaaht 0788 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

Housing Building Cooperative Society v. ACIT ing Building Cooperative Society v. ACIT 76 TTJ 948 wherein it is held that the appellant is entitled to adopt 76 TTJ 948 wherein it is held that the appellant is entitled to adopt 76 TTJ 948 wherein it is held that the appellant is entitled to adopt Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) Suratchandra

ACIT 30(3), MUMBAI vs. SURATCHANDRA B. THAKKAR -HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-30(3), Shri Suratchandra B. Thakkar C-13, 5Th Floor, R. No. 510, (Huf), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tipco Compound, Rani Sati Bandra (East), Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aaaht 0788 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

Housing Building Cooperative Society v. ACIT ing Building Cooperative Society v. ACIT 76 TTJ 948 wherein it is held that the appellant is entitled to adopt 76 TTJ 948 wherein it is held that the appellant is entitled to adopt 76 TTJ 948 wherein it is held that the appellant is entitled to adopt Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) Suratchandra

ACIT 30(3), MUMBAI vs. SURATCHANDRA B. THAKKAR -HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-30(3), Shri Suratchandra B. Thakkar C-13, 5Th Floor, R. No. 510, (Huf), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tipco Compound, Rani Sati Bandra (East), Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aaaht 0788 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

Housing Building Cooperative Society v. ACIT ing Building Cooperative Society v. ACIT 76 TTJ 948 wherein it is held that the appellant is entitled to adopt 76 TTJ 948 wherein it is held that the appellant is entitled to adopt 76 TTJ 948 wherein it is held that the appellant is entitled to adopt Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) Suratchandra

ANIL PANNALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

53A of the Transfer of the Property Act, it is required to be a registered instrument for enforcing civil law rights." 3 Anil Pannalal Jain., Mumbai. The law is well settled that immovable property is transferred only through a registered deed. Mere allotment letters or agreements to sell do not create any legal title in the property until they

HEMA DALJIT SINGH CHADHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsmt. Hema Daljit Singh Chadha, Flat No. 204, Grant Canyon, Opp. Hdfc Bank, Pali Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan: Acxpc0971B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-23(1)(5), Room No. 114, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

house property and other sources. During the year under consideration as per AIR information the assessee has sold an immovable property by agreement dated 28-02-2011 for a consideration of Rs 83,00,000/-. But capital gains arose against the said transaction is not reflected in her return of income. 3. During the assessment proceedings assessee was asked

PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpyramid Developers, 2Nd Floor, Sharda Bhavan, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 400 005, Pan: Aaifp1958J ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 32(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Respondent

53A. Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already

DCIT ,CC- 8(4), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK R. RUIA (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

53A of the Transfer of Property Act for the impugned assessment year 1999- 2000. In order to make out such a case, the Assessing Officer has refused to look into the events, which followed after 31-3-1999. If the Assessing Officer read the entire episode as a whole, the Assessing Officer would know that there was no actual transfer

MR GAJANAN PARSHURAM KHISMATRAO,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(2), KALYAN

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) ; or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

MAIMOON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) ; or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling