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)

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 in those cases. Section

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

property by paying an advance to claim\nexemption u/s 54 of the Act, inspite of the fact that there was no\nregistration of sale deed & the balance consideration amount was\nyet to be paid. The Hon'ble High Court, was of the view that if the\nconsideration received on the said property has been invested in\npurchasing a residential house

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

HEMDENDRA K. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

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

ACIT -893) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIPLE SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

54G and 54GA use the expression „land or building or any right in land or building‟. Therefore, the scope of deeming fiction contained in Section 43CA of the act would apply only in the case of transfer of asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both and the same cannot be extended to cover any right

SUPERMAX PERSONAL CARE P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI

property transferred must be a capital asset on the date of transfer. In the matter of Chunnilal Prabhudas & Co.,the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court (76 ITR 566), had observed as under: 6107/M/16.Supermax Personal Care Pvt.Ltd. In order to be taxable capital gain within the meaning of section 12B of the Income-tax Act, there has to be: (1) profit

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessing Officer is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

House, C 5 G Block, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAACB0472C] Appearances: C Naresh, for the assessee Rahul Raman, for the revenue Date of concluding the hearing: October 27, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order: December 11, 2020 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. This set of cross appeals, consisting of an appeal filed

PARVINCHAND N. SEHGAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

House, H.G. Mumbai. 400051 Road, Opp: Kennedy Bridge, Grant Road (W), Mumbai- 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAHP2624R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri V. Vidhyadhar Assessee by: Shri Shekhar Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 11.12.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17.01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH

THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAURI TANDON, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleacit – 15(1)(1) V. Gauri Tandon Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tandon Beach House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(Pt), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Aaapb4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Smiti Samant

House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(PT), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 PAN: AAAPB4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented by : Shri Smiti Samant Date of Hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against order