ACIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGALPRABHAT GUMANMAL LODHA , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021,\nwhich further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the\ndifference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration, particularly\nin cases involving specified transactions. The addition of Rs.3,26,58,000/- is in line\nwith the statutory provisions and should have been upheld

HBS VIEW PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) w.e.f. 1st April 2021, which further clarified the scope of the provisions relating to the taxation of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration, particularly in cases involving specified transactions. The addition of Rs. 3,26,58,000/- is in line with the statutory provisions and should have been upheld

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX vs. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commercial Development Nfac/Ito Ward 24(1)(1), Corporation, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Vs. 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Lalbaug, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Commercial Development Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Corporation, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent

house standing thereon vide two agreements each dated 15.03.1978 for a dated 15.03.1978 for a total consideration of Rs.4,25,000/ total consideration of Rs.4,25,000/- for building and Rs.3,25,000/ building and Rs.3,25,000/- for land respectively. The large portion land respectively. The large portion of the land is still occupied by unauthorized hutments which

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Commercial Development Nfac/Ito Ward 24(1)(1), Corporation, Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, Vs. 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Lalbaug, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Commercial Development Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, Corporation, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 703, Hariom Chambers, B-16, Parel, Veera Ind. Estate Off Link Road, Mumbai-400012. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aaafc 7020 J Appellant Respondent

house standing thereon vide two agreements each dated 15.03.1978 for a dated 15.03.1978 for a total consideration of Rs.4,25,000/ total consideration of Rs.4,25,000/- for building and Rs.3,25,000/ building and Rs.3,25,000/- for land respectively. The large portion land respectively. The large portion of the land is still occupied by unauthorized hutments which

GLORY SHIPMANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] …………… Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule Date Conclusion of hearing : 28.12.2023 Pronouncement of order : 30.01.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

House Property, Profit and Gains of business or profession, or capital gain) is to be computed and brought to charge under section 56 under the head “Income from Other sources”. In other words, it can be said that the residuary head of income can be resorted to only if none of the specific head is applicable to the income

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

House Property, Profit and Gains of business or profession, or capital gain) is to be computed and brought to charge under section 56 under the head “Income from Other sources”. In other words, it can be said that the residuary head of income can be resorted to only if none of the specific head is applicable to the income

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

House Property" or "Business and Profession". The residual income is taxed under "income from Other Sources". In the instance case, the fact of the matter is that; the assessee has got himself enriched by a sum of Rs.49 02 crores , during the year. 5.11 Thus, the entire transaction has been, structured in a way so that the Assessee Company

KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

house standing thereon vide two agreements each dated 15.03.1978 for a total consideration of Rs.4,25,000/- for building and Rs.3,25,000/- for land respectively. The large portion of the land is still occupied by unauthorized hutments which are declared as Slum by the appropriate authority. The agreement was executed and possession of the property was taken

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

property and (donor). In DP World (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (140 ITD 694) (Mum) the coordinate bench of Tribunal while considering the taxability of the Gift held that when, the assessee received three residential flats by way of gift of shares of the concerned housing society from its sister concern and in absence of any specific provision taxing a gift

ITO (IT)-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIRAJ AHMED JAMALBHAI BORA, MUMBAI

Appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1886/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Siraj Ahmed Jamalbhai Bora Ito Ward – 1(3)(1) Flat No. 7, Sunswept Bunglow, 2 Nd R. No. 113, Scindia House, बिाम/ Cross Lane-4, Lokhandwala N. M. Road, Ballard Pier, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 038 Mumbai-400 053 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Apjpb-5993-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3853/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito Ward – 1(3)(1) Shri Siraj Ahmed Jamalbhai Bora Flat No. 7, Sunswept Bunglow, 2 Nd R. No. 113, Scindia House बिाम/ N. M. Road, Ballard Pier, Cross Lane-4, Lokhandwala Vs. Mumbai-400 038 Complex, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Apjpb-5993-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Sunil Makhija, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T. S. Khalsa, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 29/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 29/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

House बिाम/ N. M. Road, Ballard Pier, Cross Lane-4, Lokhandwala Vs. Mumbai-400 038 Complex, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. APJPB-5993-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Sunil Makhija, Ld. AR Revenue by : Shri T. S. Khalsa, Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 29/06/2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 29/07/2021 Date

JAIDEV R. SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 6(3) EARSTWHILE ACIT - CC-38, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shuklajaidev R. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aalps9283N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Rajnikant D. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Uniphos House, 11Th Road, Mumbai. Vs. Cd Marg, Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aalps9281Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Vikram R. Shroff, फनाभ/ Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaops8597C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) फनाभ/ Sandra R. Shroff, Acit, Central Circle-38, Cd Marg, Khar (W), (After Restructuring New Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. Jurisdiction Dcit, Cc 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Ahhps2731G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

House, 11th Road, Mumbai. Vs. CD Marg, Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AALPS9281Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) Vikram R. Shroff, फनाभ/ ACIT, Central Circle-38, CD Marg, Khar (W), (After restructuring new Vs. Mumbai – 400 052. jurisdiction DCIT, CC 6(3)), Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AAOPS8597C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) फनाभ/ Sandra R. Shroff, ACIT

KIRAN R SAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (INTL. TAX) 4 (1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kiran R. Sawlani Ito (Intl. Tax) 4(1)(1) 104/A, Building No. A/3, Vs. R. No. 1729, 17Th Floor, Lok Nirman, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052 Mumbai – 400 021S

section (2) of Sec. 50C, we find that the same therein contemplates that in a case where an assessee claims before an A.O that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority qua the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer

RAJESH R. SAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

section (2) of Sec. 50C, we find that the same therein contemplates that in a case where an assessee claims before an A.O that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority qua the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer

DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI vs. ATEEV V GALA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-17(2), Ateev V. Gala, R. No.217, 02Nd Floor, 575/A, The Orient Jame बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Jamshed Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Matunga Mumbai-400019 Pan No.Aalpg6039N (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

property or asset of the HUF. The CIT(A) held that the assessee has failed to make out a case either before the assessing officer or before him to prove and to establish that Rs.60 lakhs received from HUF is equal to or less than the income which can be apportioned to his share of income

DY CIT. CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S TRAVECOM GLOBAL P. LTD., BHAYANDER

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

houses), detailed explanation and factors considered to arrive at the discounting factor 15 percent. General Rejection of DCF 2. The Assessing officer has erred in rejecting the DCF method Method adopted by assessee as its beyond the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer as mentioned in Paragraph 5 of Page 7 of Assessment order. Facts of the case: 1. The assessee filed

SHILPA GAUTAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO, (INT TX), WARD-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Housing Soc., Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400073 [PAN: ADDPG0713G] …………… Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer International Tax Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai, 1727, 17th Floor, Air India Building, Respondent ……………. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Rajesh Athwale For the Respondent/Department : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Date Conclusion of hearing : 02.05.2023 Pronouncement of order

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

House property, Profit and Gains of business or profession. Or capital gain) is to be computed and brought to charge under section 56 under the head “income from other sources”. In other words, it can be said that the residuary head of income can be resorted to only if none of the specific head is applicable to the income

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

House property, Profit and Gains of business or profession. Or capital gain) is to be computed and brought to charge under section 56 under the head “income from other sources”. In other words, it can be said that the residuary head of income can be resorted to only if none of the specific head is applicable to the income