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

VISHAL DUTT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H is chargeable to income tax under the head 'capital gains' and shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The aforesaid sections which form part of section 54 of the Act are cases where capital gain on transfer of capital asset not to be charged

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

ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. JAYANT KUMAR J CHOKSI, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 19(2)(1), Shri Jayantkumar Javerilal 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Choksi, Tardeo Road, 524, Sandhurst Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 007 Svp Road, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aaepc3646E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri, Rajesh Ojha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2016 O R D E R

54E (since deleted) and section 54EC and 54ED which require investment of the proceeds in specified assets, specifically provides that the exemption would be forfeited if the specified assets is given as a security for taking loan. In section 54. we do not find any such provision and therefore, in our considered view the purpose of section

PRADIPKUMAR P. KANAKIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR13(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradipkumar Purshottam Dcit, Kanakia, Circle-13(2), बनाम/ C/O- Pratap Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18, Steel Yard House, Iron Mumbai-400020 Market, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400009 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Afvpk8451P

section itself. For instance s. 23(2) exempts income from a property consisting of a house or a part of house which is in occupation of the assessee or which could not be occupied by the assessee because of his employment/business/profession being carried on at some other place. Based on such provisions contained in s. 23(2), income from

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

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

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 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 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

RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

house has passed on to the assessee. Therefore the payment made subsequent to allotment letter in installments would not in any manner affect the assessee having satisfied Section 54F(1) of the Act. This submission ignores the fact that Sub Section (1) of Section 54F has been made subject to Sub Section (4) of the Act. The requirement under Section

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

ANJALI PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

house property, capital gain and other sources. In the said return the assessee declared long term capital gain on sale of two shares namely G Tech Soft Ltd and High land Ltd of Rs. 69,35,295/- which were purchased by the assessee in FY 2002-03 relevant to AY 2003-04 at cost of Rs.1,58,299/-.The payment