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

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

Housing Projects Ltd. ITA 179/2011 that where there is complete lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer. The assessment order is erroneous the relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court are as under : “A distinction must be drawn in the cases where the Assessing Officer does not conduct an enquiry; as lack of enquiry by itself

RADIANT LIFE CARE MUMBAI P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

Housing Projects Ltd. ITA 179/2011 that where there is complete lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer. The assessment order is erroneous the relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court are as under : “A distinction must be drawn in the cases where the Assessing Officer does not conduct an enquiry; as lack of enquiry by itself

M/S WAVELL INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

House, 2(3)(1) Room no. 552, 5 th floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by : Ms Ritika Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR Date of hearing: 09.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 17.08.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These

JT. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S WAVELL INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

House, 2(3)(1) Room no. 552, 5 th floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by : Ms Ritika Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR Date of hearing: 09.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 17.08.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALAYN vs. KRISHNA ZIPA RASAL PATIL, AMBERNATH WEST

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

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

House No. 2874, Venubai Niwas Kohoj Gaon Ambarnath West Maharashtra - 421501 [PAN: ABBPR0754N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudhir V. Hunnargikar, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Suhas Dabade, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: : 24/10/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the revenue is preferred against

LALITA NARENDRA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

housing loan taken from Bank of India. 3 Ms. Lalita Narendra Kothari 5. On the facts and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer erred by failing to appreciate that date of agreement and date of registration is not the same, hence, market value on date of agreement shall be considered and not as on date of registration. 6. The appellant craves

ASST CIT CIR. 15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S DPN REALITY DEALS PVT LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Vp आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1347/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Acit, Circle-15(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Dpn Reality Deals Room No. 483A, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Unit No. 4, Building No. 400020. 2, Sector-1, Millenium Business Park Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy6576C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Saurabh Bhat Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 18.11.2019 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal & Deleting The Additions Of Rs.19,46,21,075/- Made U/S 56(2)(Viib) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.”

viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). 2 A.Y. 2016-17 DPN Reality Deals 4. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of dealing in properties buying land and construction of farm houses and selling the same. The return for the year under appeal was e-filed

FIRDOS SHAHNAWAZUDDIN SIDDIQUI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

viib) of the Act as the payment (or part payment) has to be made in any mode other than cash; 8. Erred in holding that the Appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove that the possession of the impugned property was taken by the Appellant in 2010, whereas, the Appellant had submitted a notarized affidavit on stamp

AILA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Aila Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 8F/95, Sonawala Building, Sleater Road, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 007. Pan: Aakca 5414B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 12(1)-1, Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

House Property and Rs. 8614400/- u/s. 69 of the Act under the Head Income from Other Sources. The Assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. The assessee is further aggrieved with this order of Ld. CIT (A), preferred the present

SHARAD SEVANTILAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(6), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Loan from HDFC Bank. The assessee also submitted\nthat since the seller had some technical issues in getting the original documents\nfrom the Bank there was delay in getting the property registered which ultimately\nhappened on 31.12.2015 by when the stamp duty valuation has increased due to\nchange in the method of ariving at the stamp duty valuation. Accordingly

ACADEMY FOR GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

House, Broker Ltd. Mumbai- 400004 10 Sar 7, Prem AAFCS1 6250 10 62500 390 2437500 2500000 Engineerin Bhavan, 2nd 836G g Ltd Floor, 234/236, Narshi Nath Street, Masiid Bandert 11 Duralloy 105, AABCD 6250 10 62500 390 2437500 2500000 Cutters Ltd Churchgate 4127B Chamber, 5, Sir Vithaldas Thackersay Road Marine Lines, Mumbai- 400020 12 Rigveda 105, AAACR

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAJNI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

House International (P) Ltd ITA No.112/2018 against which the SP of the revenue was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I find merit in the contention of the appellant. The AO has doubted the creditworthiness and capacity of the lender companies to raise share capital and premium solely on the ITA No. 6128/Mum/2019 & Co. No. 45/Mum/2021 Shri Majni

PMP AUTO COMPONENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 7(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in AY 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

house property or profits and gains in business or profession or capital gains and/or income from other sources. Section 92 of the Act requires income to arise from an international transaction while determing the ALP. Therefore the sina qua non is that income must first arise on account of the international transaction. (e) The view of this Court in Vodafone

MANE FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanmane Finance Private Limited, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai Tax – 5(2)(2), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Apsara Cinema Building, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Grant Road, S. O. Mumbai – K. Marg, New Marine Lines, 400007. Mumbai – 400020. Pan: Aaacm2849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The value worked out as per the above calculation and arrived at Rs. 14,40,00,000/- is added to the income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has dismissed the appeal purportedly on merit

ITO WD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. GOODYIELD FARMING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Property Act or under any other law. Since no title was created on the said lands in favour of the assessee, the name of the assessee would not figure in the records of agricultural department. The assessee company in aggregate had 642 acres of land for cultivation covered under various arguments. A list showing the owners of the lands

SABARMATI CAPITAL ONE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, WARD-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

houses and flats would be impermissible - which is clearly not the case. 14. As far as the alternative argument that the assessee itself is occupier, because it holds the property till it is sold, is concerned, the Court does not find any merit in this submission. While there can be no quarrel with the proposition that "occupation" can be synonymous