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

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

VINAY ARUN JOSHI,THANE vs. PCIT CENTRAL MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the total income for the\nentire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated\nassessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending\nassessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the\njurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that\nall completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

reassessment proceedings under Section 148, believing that income had escaped assessment based on information received from another AO regarding the sale of a shop. The AO determined the sale consideration based on the market value and proposed an addition under Section 50C

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

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

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

PANKAJ DHANDHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-22(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

reassessment proceedings under\nsection 147 of the act cannot be initiated merely on the ground\nthat the learned assessing officer has lost sight of the statutory\nprovisions like 50C, 43CA and section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. NANIKRAM MENGHRAJ TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriito V/S. Nanikram Menghraj Trust Room No.618, Mtnl बनाम 113, 114 Navjivan, Building, Cumbala Hill, Commercial Building No.3, Peddar Road, Lamington Road, Maharashtra-400026 Mumbai Central, Maharashtra-400008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatn2215N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

reassessment was made u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 11.12.2018 wherein the capital gains were computed after applying provision of section 50C

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

50C specifically applies to transfer of land or building or rights therein. AMD the valuation for stamp duty purposes is a valid mechanism for computing capital gain under section 48. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- as mere security deposit

INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(2)(4), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RBI EMPLOYEES BHAGVATI COOP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD , MULUND EAST, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

50C specifically applies to transfer of land or building or rights therein. AMD the valuation for stamp duty purposes is a valid mechanism for computing capital gain under section 48. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- as mere security deposit

AMARSHI AVCHAR GALA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 24(1)(1) , MUMBAI

Section 50C of the Act and cost of acquisition as ‘Nil’. In appeal preferred by the Appellant against the Assessment Order, 4. dated 19/12/2018, the CIT(A) rejected the challenge to initiation of reassessment

ACIT - 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RISHABH DIAMOND PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross\nObjection by the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment was based on a 'change of opinion' and not on new tangible material, making the proceedings impermissible. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was void ab initio.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "68", "151", "143(3)", "115JB(2)", "133(6)", "50C

VIVEK AGNIHOTRI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

reassessement proceedings. Further the assessment was reopened U/sec147 of the Act for invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act due difference

TUSHAR ENTERPRISES,GOREGAON EAST, MUMBAI vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, , KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailtushar Enterprises, 2-A/401-402 Dheeraj Valley, Mohan Gokhale Road, Saibaba Complex, Goregaon East, Mumbai ............... Appellant Maharahstra - 400063 Pan : Aaaft1242R V/S Income Tax Officer, ……………… Respondent Ward – 41(4)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.Dr

reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the difference between the agreement value and stamp duty value should not be added to its total income under section 50C

VIKAS BEDPRAKASH PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Bedprakash Pandey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1102 Riddhi Tower, Riddhi Garden 41(4)(4),Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai- Film City Road, Malad E Mumbai- 400051. 400097. Pan/Gir No: Anwpp9823B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Pankaj Kumar (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

reassessment proceeding by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s.148A r.w.s. 144 of the Act is bad in law. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in adding difference between stamp duty value and purchase price as income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(vii) (b) of the Act even when the difference was mere 1.065 percent. 3. The appellant

UTILITY SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

reassessment u/s 153 A & B of the Act,\nthe approval/sanction u/s 153D of the Act of the approving\nauthority is mandatory and therefore the approval should not be\nrubber stamping and mere ritual formality and should not suffer\nfrom lack of application of mind but the same has to be reasoned,\nbased on examination of the relevant material available