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

54E. There is nothing to indicate that investment is restricted to any of the specified assets. Had the Legislature intended to restrict investment in any one of the specified assets, it would have used the words ‘in any one of the specified assets’ instead of ‘in any specified asset’. This clearly shows that the word ‘any’ has been used where

CHERYL OSCAR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one residential houses, exemption would be available only in respect of one house and other self-occupied residential houses will be treated as let out. There is no such provision in section 54 to restrict the exemption of capital gain only to sale of one residential house. The authorities

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Housing Infrastructure Development Corpn. (supra). 17. In the case of Beacon Projects (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Kerala High Court held at paragraphs 11 and 12 that: "From the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, it is obvious that section 2(28A) is not attracted to every payment made and that the provision can be attracted only

DCITCC 3(2) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. HRISHIKESH D. PAI, MUMBAI

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 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 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

house at Beau Monde, Prabhadevi for Rs.20,63,72,233/-. Appellant had claimed a deduction of 54F from the sale consideration received from the sale of commercial and residential property. However, AO had denied appellant's claim u/s 54F on sale of commercial property on observing that as appellant had claimed depreciation for commercial property, hence section

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

Housing\nInfrastructure Development Corpn. (supra).\n17. In the case of Beacon Projects (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Kerala High Court\nheld at paragraphs 11 and 12 that:\n\"From the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above, it is\nobvious that section 2(28A) is not attracted to every payment made and\nthat the provision can be attracted only

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

property and thereby necessary conditions under section 54F also do not stands fulfilled. And the assessee’s case is that post purchase of the two flats, the revised plan was approved by MHADA wherein the two flats were considered as one single unit, with one kitchen and therefore the necessary criteria under section 54 F stands fulfilled. 4.2. Before

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

property and thereby necessary conditions under section 54F also do not stands fulfilled. And the assessee’s case is that post purchase of the two flats, the revised plan was approved by MHADA wherein the two flats were considered as one single unit, with one kitchen and therefore the necessary criteria under section 54 F stands fulfilled. 4.2. Before

UNIQUE PROPERTIES & SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - CENTRAL CIRCLE 38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Unique Properties & Securities Private Assistant Commissioner-Central Circle Limited, 4Th Floor, Malhotra House, Opp. Vs. 38, [Now Dcit Central Circle 6(3)], 19Th Gpo, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacu0702G Appellant Respondent

section 54E to the assessee in respect of the capital gains arising on the transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation hat been allowed. [Para 27]” The above decision has relevance in the instant appeal in the backdrop of the sale deed dated 30.12.2002 for purchase of property and deed of conveyance dated 31.03.2011 for sale of property

ITO 26(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GOPE G. SHAHANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

house property purchased by the assessee had come into the full domain and control of the assessee within a period of one year. In the case of Kesho Ram Passey v. Reserve Bank of India [1984] 146 ITR 16, the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the provisions of section 54E

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

house property. Section 50 determines the gain arising from any asset as short term capital gain. Thus, it characterizes the gain and not the capital asset. Undoubtedly, the capital gain on by the assessee under section 50 C may be chargeable to tax as short term capital gain however as the impugned building was held for more than 36 months

ZODIAC JRD MKJ LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

House, Mumbai- 400 004 Maharashtra PAN: AAACZ0459K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Drutika Jain, A.R. & Ms. Priyank Ghia, A.R. Revenue by : Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23 . 05 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31 . 05 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The assessee by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside

PLUTO SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

House Property. The assessee has also filed copy of leave and license agreement along with ledger of such rental income in its paper book. 7. From the Above facts, we noted that there is no doubt that the said asset was held as an investment and assessee being a private limited company, the Companies Act provides that the office premise

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

house property at Kolkata was\nvalued Rs 11,55,19,784/- by stamp value authorities.The valuation report\nclearly showed that the property was old since it was purchased in 1996\nand heavy repairs were needed.The assessee proposed to make a distress\nsale at lesser value of Rs 7 cr. to one Deepak Builder P.Ltd.The property\nconsisted of 32 flats. Copy

ITO 21 (1) (5), MUMBAI vs. JAYA DEEPAK BHAVNANI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer-21(1)(5) Smt. Jaya Deepak Bhavnani Room No. 120, 1St Floor 407, Sun Industrial Estate Vs. Piramal Chambers Sunmil Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400012 Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaapb7618R Appellant Respondent

house property to the tune of `1,44,68,000/-. The AO denied exemption under Section 54 F and added the same on the ground that capital gain resulting from sale of depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Act is short term capital gain and therefore no exemption of the same can be claimed under Section

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

house research & development facility. Therefore, we agree with the contentions of the Id. counsel for the assessee, before us that in the impugned year involved before us, the Revenue has erred in restricting the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent approved by the prescribed authority ie. DSIR. 21. The aforesaid decision

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

house research & development facility. Therefore, we agree with the contentions of the Id. counsel for the assessee, before us that in the impugned year involved before us, the Revenue has erred in restricting the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent approved by the prescribed authority ie. DSIR. 21. The aforesaid decision

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n54 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \nfor allocation of notional expenditure. The deductions contemplated are \nthe

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for\nA

house research &\ndevelopment facility. Therefore, we agree with the contentions\nof the Id. counsel for the assessee, before us that in the\nimpugned year involved before us, the Revenue has erred in\nrestricting the claim of weighted deduction under section\n35(2AB) of the Act to the extent approved by the prescribed\nauthority ie. DSIR.\n21. The aforesaid decision

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house property at Kolkata was\nvalued Rs 11,55,19,784/- by stamp value authorities.The valuation report\nclearly showed that the property was old since it was purchased in 1996\nand heavy repairs were needed.The assessee proposed to make a distress\nsale at lesser value of Rs 7 cr. to one Deepak Builder P.Ltd.The property\nconsisted of 32 flats. Copy