SHILPA GAUTAM,MUMBAI vs. ITO, (INT TX), WARD-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, and therefore, the same are being taken up together hereinafter. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, a non-resident 3. individual, did not file return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Based upon the information received by the Assessing Officer that the Appellant has purchased an immovable

ACIT CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAJENDRA NARPATMAL LODHA, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being difference between stamp duty valve and agreement value during the year under consideration". 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that date mentioned in letter of allotment cannot be considered as date of agreement

DANISH SHEIKH,USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INTL TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

56(2)(vii)(b) provides that no addition should be made on account of the differencing Agreement Value and the Stamp Duty Value in cases where there is a time difference between the date of agreement and the date of registration provided the payment in full or in part has been made by any account payee cheque or draft

VALUKKO INFRASTRUSTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 11(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

56(2)(vii)(b) provides that no addition should be made on account of the differencing Agreement Value and the Stamp Duty Value in cases where there is a time difference between the date of agreement and the date of registration provided the payment in full or in part has been made by any account payee cheque or draft

HIFZUR REHMAN ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeehifzur Rehman Ansari Vs Ito Ward-20(1)(5), Mumbai 1103, Zam Zam Tower Piramal Chambers, Dr Ss Rao Marg, Belvedere Road, Mazgaon, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 010 Pan: Aaapa7928F Applicant Respondent

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act amount to Rs.34,70,000/- and Rs.18,97,250/-. Further, the addition was made related to deemed rent amount to Rs.1,02,780/-, unsecured loan received from parties Rs.30 lakhs, the cash loan amount to Rs.10,88,000/- and capital gain related to sale proceeds, Rs.2,49,840/-. The aggrieved assesse filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53

ITO-26(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53,71,450 and interest bifurcated into dividend income of Rs.53

TUTOR INVESTMENT& FINANCE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “E”, which, vide its order in ITA No. 6752/Mum/2017 dated 15.06.2018, upheld the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Act.

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The said addition pertained to the issuance of 10 lakh shares by the assessee at Rs.200 per share to M/s Chinar Commercials Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Chinar Finvest Pvt Ltd, for a total consideration of Rs.20 crores. During the reassessment

ARM INFRA & UTILITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

vii)(c), the word "property" defined in Explanation to the said section includes both shares and securities. (b) Conversion of debentures into shares was treated as transfer for the purposes of capital gain but for Section 47(x) which exempts such conversion from capital gains which makes it clear that "shares" and "debentures" are distinct. Therefore, only "shares" are covered

RAGHAVENDRA RAMAKRISHNA NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Raghavendra Ramakrishna Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Naik 3(3)(1), Mumbai Raghavendra Ramakrishna Room No. 626, 6Th Floor, Naik D-1, Flat No. 7, Navyouak Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Society, Bhandup East, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400042 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Afapn9077M) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Manisha Thakkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Ito (Intl. Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai-3 Vide Order No. Itba/Com/F/17/2024-25/1072645237(1) Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 02.12.2024 For Ay 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Applicant States That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Principle Laid

Section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii)of the Act, which stipulates that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer/ purchase of immovable property (date of allotment 29.09.2010) and the date of registration (18.03.2016) are not the same, the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement may be taken

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 ()

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act dated 30//06/2021. Assessee filed requisite details. The Ld.AO after considering submissions of the assessee passed order dated 22/03/2023 making the following additions: Particulars Amount Addition on account of difference in Stamp duty value as on 21,91,700 25 May 2016 and the transaction value of INR 13,00,000 entered

SMT. PREMA MUKESH JHALANI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2) , THANE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon‟Ble Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani Vs. Ito, Ward 3(2) 1 A/34, Drugs Society, Opp. Room No. 4, 6Th Floor, Jk Gram, Samatha Nagar B-Wagle Estate, Midc, Pokhran Road No. 1 Thane (W) Thane (W). Pan/Gir No. Aaupj0472D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Chetan M. Kacha, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 22.08.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. All The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Interrelated & Interconnected & Relates To Challenging The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Upholding The Order Of Ao In Reopening The 2 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai

section 56 is invalid and the addition made by him deserves to be deleted. 6 Smt. Prema Mukesh Jhalani, Mumbai 9. It is therefore submitted that the Ld. A.O. has erred in initiating the reassessment and making addition in the hands of the appellant u/s 56(2)(vii

VORA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. A C I T - 2(3((1) 801/806, 8Th Floor, Elite Square Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 274, Perin Nariman, St. Bazar Gate M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacv1975E Appellant Respondent

reassessment was not valid. 19. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has considered an identical issue in the context of sec. 263 of the Act in the case of CIT Vs. General Magnets Ltd (253 ITR 471). In the above said case, the Ld CIT sought to cancel the deduction claimed u/s 35CCA of the Act on the basis