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

u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act for the above assessment year. In this respect, please note that your case was reopened on the basis of information received from the Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax- 14(2), Mumbai. Clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act clearly states that 'where a return of income

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

147, which subsequently became subject matter of revisions in the impugned revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition

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

147, which subsequently became subject matter of revisions in the impugned revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition

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

147, which subsequently became subject matter of revisions in the impugned revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition

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

147, which subsequently became subject matter of revisions in the impugned revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition

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

147, which subsequently became subject matter of revisions in the impugned revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition

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

147, which subsequently became subject matter of revisions in the impugned revisions order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263, the assessee had filed an appeal against the 21 Co.Op. Housing Societies aforesaid assessment order before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) wherein following grounds were taken: “(1) The Learned Assessing officer erred in taking the cost of acquisition

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

147 be annulled. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1, GROUND NO. 2: DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT ISSUED WITHOUT SIGNATURE OF THE ISSUING AUTHORITY WOULD VITIATE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS: On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in issuing the demand notice u/s

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

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 ()

2,42,590. In addition, the difference between the stamp duty value and the declared consideration amounting to ₹69,40,767 was added as deemed income u/s 43CA. The 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

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

147 read with section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 28.03.2013 determining the total income of assessee at ₹3,46,49,917/-. 019. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the reopening of the assessment as well as the addition on merits. On the issue of chargeability of capital gain the learned CIT(A) held that

PANKAJ SURECH RACH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TAX WARD 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that the order is illegal, void and bad in law and ought to be quashed. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in passing the final and draft assessment order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard, that the order passed without giving adequate opportunity is against the principles of natural

R.P. SUVARNA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (33), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

50C of the Act on the basis of valuation made by the stamp duty authorities. 2.2. I have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the original assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 07/04/2008 computing the income at Rs.97,200/-. During original assessment

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)

u/s 143(3). As a result, it is held that the re-assessment proceedings in the present case are not valid and the reassessment proceedings are quashed. Since, the reassessment proceedings have been quashed, the other grounds are not adjudicated. 5. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. Contentions of the Revenue by way of this

ITO 17 (2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NEUMEC BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- Neumec Builders & Developers ITA no.6423/Mum./2018 “I. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO has made addition u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the addition made by the AO is under section 28 under the head

MIG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY GROUP- II LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

147,that the it had overlooked the circumstances under which the re-assessment proceedings were initiated,that there was no much substance in the argument of the assessee that notice u/s. 148 could not be issued when time-limit was available for issue of notice u/s.143(2) for making assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act.He further held that case laws

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.

147 TTJ 94 (Ahd) which held that the deeming fiction u/s 50C, 43CA and 56(2) did not apply to the acquisition of the rights in the building under construction. GROUND NO. 3: FAILURE TO REFER TO VLUATION OFFICER In case of the difference between the Agreement value and the stamp duty value, the AO and the DRP were required

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.

147 TTJ 94 (Ahd) which held that the deeming fiction u/s 50C, 43CA and 56(2) did not apply to the acquisition of the rights in the building under construction. GROUND NO. 3: FAILURE TO REFER TO VLUATION OFFICER In case of the difference between the Agreement value and the stamp duty value, the AO and the DRP were required