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

BHUSHAN VASANT PARELKAR,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

54F for investment in new property. 3. In the present appeal, essentially the issue to be decided is on legal ground, challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 on account of being barred by limitation and consequent reassessment order passed u/s. 147 being bad in law. Since, the issue involved is legal and the facts relating thereto are already

SMT. MAYA MOHAN DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD-26(2)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with the above direction

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kand, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Smt. Maya Mohan Desai Ito Ward-26(2)(6) 604, Marve Queen-2, Mumbai -400 051 Upper Kharodi, Malad (W), Vs. Mumbai – 400 095

54F. These decisions do not support the assessee’s claim in the present case. Nevertheless, we are of the considered view that as the entire sale consideration has been declared by the co-owner namely the assessee’s son, in no case can the ld. A.O. make an addition in the hands of the assessee. We, therefore, direct

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

reassess the total income, taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns\" and as in the instant case the addition is based on the incriminating material such as the information qua selling of lands by the Assessee, found from the valuable group of cases

KEVAL H SETH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar, Hon’Blekeval H. Seth V. Ito, Ward 16(2)(1), 17-D Malabar Apartment Matrumandir, Nepeansea Road Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400036 Mumbai- 400007 Pan: Afbps4180H

section 151 (2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in concluding that the transactions with M/s. Alliance Intermediatories& Network Pvt. Ltd. are bogus and disallowing the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.54.60.292/- thus making an addition