VINOD K.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of information received from the DDIT (Inv) 1(4), Mumbai on 25.11.2009 that the assessee had entered into share transactions for sale/purchase of shares of M/s. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd. through a broker of the Mahasagar group of companies operated by Shri Vinod K. Shah Mukesh Choksi

HARSHUPRASAD A MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhanraj Raut Acit Cir-4 बनाम/ A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar Matruchaya Sopara Vs. Bhandar Ali, Nalasopara It Park Road No. 16Z, (W), Vasai Wagle Indl Estate, Thane. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopr9071J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassessment bad in law on the basis of barrowed satisfaction, presumption and surmises. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 54F for investment made in residential property consisting 12 units on 5th, 6th & 7th Floor in Sidhivinayak Tower

ANJALI PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment of total income under the aforesaid provision. Similar position will obtain in a case where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of search. In other words, harmonious interpretation will produce the following results :- a) In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make original assessment and assessment u/s 153A merge into

AJIT DAYAL LALVANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 7(2),

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1949/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Mr. Ajit Dayal Lalvani Dy. Cit 7(2) बनाम/ 3, Gazdar House, 45, Mumbai Vs. Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpl4560C

sections 7. Apparently, in view of the said circumstances for the purpose of deduction u/s.54 or 54F of the Act, the land appurtenant on constructed house is liable to be considered for exemption. Therefore, in view of the said circumstances the purchase value of the house to the tune of Rs.30,29,296/- is liable to be considered

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA B SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of search under 132 or requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective order

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. PRATIKSHA SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within period of six assessment years pending on the date of initiation of search under 132 or requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate. 15. We have considered the rival contentions and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective order

ESQUE FINMARK PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-47, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Blem/S. Esquefinmark Private Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle – 47 9A, Chunawala Compound Room No. 658/676 Parel Tank Road Aayakar Bhavan Kalachowki, Mumbai - 400033 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaace8307P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Hema Kataria Department By D.K. Gupta

reassessment of the total income at the end of the AO, the assessee cannot be stopped from not even arguing about the merits of his case qua the addition which was made in the original assessment. Debarring the assessee from making a claim about the deductibility of any item, which was earlier disallowed, counters the very concept of fresh assessment

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

VISHALV SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri C.N. Prasad Shri Vishal V. Shah Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1) 30 Warden Court Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Vs. 79-81 August Kranti Marg Mumbai 400007 Mumbai 400036 Pan – Advps8129B Appellant Respondent

section 54F was claimed thereon. 5.1.3 As per the learned A.R. of the assessee, the AO’s reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and finding was based on the statement of one Shri Mukesh Choksi dated 11.12.2009 by the DDIT (Inv)(1)(4), Mumbai and submitted that a copy of the said statement has not been provided to the assessee

JAGDISH U. THACKERSAY,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIRCLE) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 54F of the Act.” 7.1 We further notice that as per the purchase agreement of the residential property and Index No. II, which were filed before the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings, the agreement is for the purchase of 9 Shri Jagdish U. residential property comprising of 6700 sq. ft. and 400 sq. ft. At page

VILAS SADASHIV NALAWADE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

reassessment proceedings, it is indeed “not open to the assessee to seek review of items unconnected with the escapement of income for the purpose of computation of the income escaping assessment”, as was held in Sun Engineers Works (supra), the claim of exemption under section 54F

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

reassess the taxable income after considering the benefit under Section 54F. The relevant observations and finding of the Hon’ble Court

LATE SHRI. KASAM NURMAD KARADIYA,JOGESHWARI, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarlate Shri Kasam Nurmad V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Karadiya बनाम 41(4)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, (Through His Legal Heir Shri Rahemtullah Kasambhai Avenue 3, Near Videsh Karadiya) 804, Anand Co-Op Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Hsg Society, Behram Baug Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Jogeshwari West, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Mumbai–400102, Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahpk5855E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 54F of the I.T Act, 1961, misinterpreting the provisions of law by holding the date of registration of agreement as the date of purchase of new flat as against the actual date being the date of allotment/date of the amount receivable from developer having been adjusted against the allotment of flat i.e on 13/04/2012. 6. The appellant therefore prays

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

54F. The credit entries in bank account of the assesse reflecting sale\n\nconsideration of share were found to be unexplained credits and added to the income of the assesse under section 68.\n\nOn appeal, the Commissioner [Appeals] accepted the appeal of the assesse and deleted the addition made on account of unexplained deposits on ground that

KASHINATH NARAYAN PATIL,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, MUMBAI, NEW PANVEL

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6767/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

54F of the Act. Accordingly the HonTble Delhi High Court held that there was specific and adequate reason for the Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that the transaction entered into by the assessee with M/s. Maheswari Sons for the sale and purchase of shares was a bogus transaction which was entered into through an identifiable bank

ITO 25(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. KIRIT RAOJIBHAI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

section 54F of the Act. In view of this, he submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 028. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on perusal of various orders passed by the learned assessing officer in original assessment proceedings as well as reassessment

ROHAN HEMANT THAKKAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22 3 2 , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mr. Rohan Hemant Thakkar, Income Tax Officer 22(3)(2), A 804 Prayog Building Wing A Kautilya Bhavan, Opposite Galaxy Hotel Prabhat Colony Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Road No.2 Bandra East, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 055 Pan:Agnpt4221D (Appellant) : (Respondent)

section 54F of the Act on the pretext that gain on sale of said assets is short term capital gain. 03. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeals ought to have appreciated that proceeding of reassessment

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Reassessment' order u/s 153A is always supposed to have a comprehensive, all encompassing jurisdiction - 'original' as well as based on search findings (which may or may not be there), Without such interpretation, sub section 2 and its proviso cannot be understood and do not harmoniously fit into the first subsection. 4.10. In the section 153A(l)(b), the expression Assess