JAI HIND CO OP HSG SOC LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

50C could not have been applied in the year under consideration, since the transaction had already taken place and the second objection is that value adopted by the stamp valuation authority at the time of registration of the conveyance deed could not have been adopted in the year under consideration. 37 Co.Op. Housing Societies 3.24. We have considered

SUVARNA NAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

50C could not have been applied in the year under consideration, since the transaction had already taken place and the second objection is that value adopted by the stamp valuation authority at the time of registration of the conveyance deed could not have been adopted in the year under consideration. 37 Co.Op. Housing Societies 3.24. We have considered

THE AZAD NAGAR, COOPERATIVE HOUSING, SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

50C could not have been applied in the year under consideration, since the transaction had already taken place and the second objection is that value adopted by the stamp valuation authority at the time of registration of the conveyance deed could not have been adopted in the year under consideration. 37 Co.Op. Housing Societies 3.24. We have considered

VALLABHNAGAR OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

50C could not have been applied in the year under consideration, since the transaction had already taken place and the second objection is that value adopted by the stamp valuation authority at the time of registration of the conveyance deed could not have been adopted in the year under consideration. 37 Co.Op. Housing Societies 3.24. We have considered

VITHALNAGAR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

50C could not have been applied in the year under consideration, since the transaction had already taken place and the second objection is that value adopted by the stamp valuation authority at the time of registration of the conveyance deed could not have been adopted in the year under consideration. 37 Co.Op. Housing Societies 3.24. We have considered

THE NAVYUG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

50C could not have been applied in the year under consideration, since the transaction had already taken place and the second objection is that value adopted by the stamp valuation authority at the time of registration of the conveyance deed could not have been adopted in the year under consideration. 37 Co.Op. Housing Societies 3.24. We have considered

GOBINDRAM JAGDISH KAKWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the market value by appointing a Valuer since the value was much less and the assessee was unable to sell the unit. The assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54F of the entire capital gains made by him on the sale of unit. The assessee has invested a sum of Rs 64,00,000/- in new residential asset and documentary

SHRI AJAYKUMAR SATRAPAL SINGH,MUMBAI vs. CIT -IT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Kuldip Singh (Jm)

reassessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. (3) On the facts & circumstances it is humbly prayed that the impugned revision order u/s. 263 of the Act may be quashed & oblige. 2 3. Brief facts of the case leading to the issue of notice u/s. 263 as noted

ALRAMEEZ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , MUMBAI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

ACIT -7(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAZAGON DOCK SHIPBUILDERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Income Tax-7(1)(1), Ltd. Mumbai Mazdock House, Dockyard Vs. Road, Mazagon, Mumbai – 400010 (Pan: Aaacm8029) (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings on the ground that there was mere change of opinion on the part of AO without appreciating the fact that the market value of the lease land of Rs. 591/ per sq. mtr. considered by the assessee is well short of the prevailing market value of Rs. 3930/ per sq. mtr. which resulted in under assessment of taxable

MIDDLE INCOME GROUP CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(2)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

reassessment order be annulled. (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GUOUND NO. 1 AND 2, GROUND NO. 3: ADDITION OF RS. 139,16.46.972/- AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL On the facts and ill the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in charging to tax an amount

ADARSH DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 22(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

reassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B determining the total income at ₹71,83,357. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order holding that in view of the provisions of section 50C

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

50C and escapement of income. 3) As per The recorded reason, the matter has been reopened only on the basis of letter from another AO. But it does not contain any material or application of mind from AO to held that the income has escaped assessment. The reason is vague and no ordinary person shall come to conclusion

MATERIAL RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer questioned both the adoption of the sale consideration as on the date of agreement and the fair market value adopted as on 01.04.1981. Proceeding on the premise that the document was registered in the year 2009, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C

BAJRANGLAL BHAWARLAL SHARMA,BORIVALI EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 are liable to be quashed. 2 Assessment Year 2017-2018 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Honble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in framing the impugned assessment order under section 143(3)/147 r.w.s.144B by not referring the matter

KHANDELWAL ESTATE (P) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings were not processed/continued in respect of revised return filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. He therefore observed that the verification and correctness of the assessee’s claims i.e. cost of property, sale consideration and working of profit/loss on such sale remained unexamined by the Department

KHANDELWAL ESTATE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings were not processed/continued in respect of revised return filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. He therefore observed that the verification and correctness of the assessee’s claims i.e. cost of property, sale consideration and working of profit/loss on such sale remained unexamined by the Department

KHANDELWAL ESTATES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings were not processed/continued in respect of revised return filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. He therefore observed that the verification and correctness of the assessee’s claims i.e. cost of property, sale consideration and working of profit/loss on such sale remained unexamined by the Department