VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

house property The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54, inter alia , provide that where capital gain

DIPTI NALIN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

properties are 2 separate flats. 6.6. The assessee has relied upon many judgments but the same is not applicable to the assessee as Section 54(1) was Substituted for “constructed, a residential house

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income-tax under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act. Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be meant only Section 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of Section 139 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. Provisions of section 54

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

property should be of residential nature and the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be an impediment to grant relief under section 54 even if such independent units were on different floors. The decision in Ms.Suseela M.Jhaveri's case (supra) holding that only one residential house should be given the relief under section 54 does

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

property referred to in sub-section (2) section (2) consists of mor consists of more than 54[two houses]— (a) the provisions of that sub (a) the provisions of that sub-section shall apply only in section shall apply only in respect of 55[two] of such houses, which the assessee respect of 55[two] of such houses, which

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

54. [(1)] [ 1[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee 2 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 3 [***], being buildings or 4 lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

property, it should be deemed that sufficient steps had been taken and it would satisfy the requirement of the section 54 of the Act. As per the Hon'ble High Court, the basic purpose behind section 54 of the Act is to insure that assessee is not taxed on the capital gain, if he replaces his house and spend money

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

1) can be made only when the assessee while computing the total income, claims any expenditure which is or can be said to be attributable for earning of the exempt income i.e. income which do not form part of the total income. Such a disallowance can be made/quantified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

RANI JAGDISH SAHDEVAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

1) of the Act and claim exemption under section 54 of the Act, whereas as per provisions of section 54(2) of the Act the net sale consideration which is not utilised for acquisition of a residential house property

RAJAN GUNBA TELANG,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 21 , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

1) but even section 139(4) and 139(5) of the Act, however, the condition of section 54(2) of the Act would stand satisfied if the assessee invests the unutilized capital gain in purchase of new house property