MR. ANTHONY P LEWIS,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22(1)(1), MUMBAI

u/s. 54 of the Act for a property purchased at Rs. 5,87,14,000/- during the financial year 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 while determining the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 49,50,11,429/-. (I) The Learned C.I.T.(A), erred in confirming the order of the AO on addition of the advances received

ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI vs. CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

KAY FOAM LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -2, MUMBAI

The appeal is partly allowed

reassessment order had already merged with the appellate order; (iii) The assessment order framed was not “erroneous” within the meaning of section 263 of the Act; and (iv) In any case, the assessment order was not “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue” within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. ITA. No. 598/Mum/2021 Assessment Year

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

M/S. SIMTOOLS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3) ( EARSTWHILE DCIT- CENT. CIR-42), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

53A r.w.s. 153C vide order dated 24 April 2015. A copy of the order of CIT(A)-48 is attached as Annexure 2. The order of CIT(A) was subsequently challenged by the department before the Mumbai Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 28 July 2017 has upheld the decision of CIT(A) that the action

V.N. KARBHATKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shri V. N. Karvatkar, 4-5, Chapel Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Avenue, Chapel Road, Bandra 19(3) (4), Mumbai (West), Mumbai 400050 Pan: Aacpk 2651 B Appellant .. Respondent

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, it was held by the AO that transfer of capital asset in question was completed on 27-05- 2004 i. e. on the date of sale agreement was executed/registered. Considering the above view and after recording reasons for reopening, the assessment was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28th

BALAJEE INFRATECH & CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 5.1. From a plain reading of the reasons, it is manifest that the foundation for reopening was the view that the payment of ₹31,96,000 made to Mr. Arun Gajanan Adhikari was not genuine, as the ownership of the land in question was held by M/s. Twinkle Plantations

MR GAJANAN PARSHURAM KHISMATRAO,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(2), KALYAN

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

u/s 148 is bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) also failed to appreciate the transfer of the land in question has taken place during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 and as such any capital gain thereon cannot be taxed in assessment year 2010-11. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in approving

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RISHABRAJ INFRA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 3246/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2015-16) Acit, C.Circle -2(1), Vs. Rishabraj Infrapvtltd., Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 212, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Bldg No. 3, Hari Om Mumbai – 400020. Plaza, Mg Road, Boravali (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcv2975P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Riddhi Mishra.Dr Revenue By : Mr.Karan Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

SANJAY BABAN VAITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ult, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10

u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not giving a finding whether there was a transfer of capital asset as per the provisions of section 2(47)(v) since the conditions Sanjay Baban Vaity 2 as envisaged in section 53A of the Transfer

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)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 were satisfied, as the development agreement was registered, irrevocable and possession was constructively parted with, thereby constituting a transfer in the year under consideration. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal despite the fact that the assessee had not filed any return of income voluntarily under section

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)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 were satisfied, as the development agreement was registered, irrevocable and possession was constructively parted with, thereby constituting a transfer in the year under consideration. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal despite the fact that the assessee had not filed any return of income voluntarily under section

DCIT ,CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. BIDHICHAND K BANSAL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2012-13 Dy Cit Central Circle 2(3), Shri Bidhichand K Bansal, Mumbai 109, Reti Bunder, Darukhana, Vs. Mumbai 400 010 Pan Aaepb8990N (Appellant) (Respondent)

53A r.w.s. 143(3) vide orders dated 31.03.2014, accepting returned income. The Assessing Officer had not issued any notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13 within the statutory time limit allowed i.e. 30.09.2013. The assessment for A.Y. 2012- 13 was reopened vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 20.03.2014 and notices u/s

NAVKETAN PREMISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

u/s 147 vide assessment order dated 18.11.2019, wherein the addition was made which has been assessed in AY 2015-16 i.e. the difference of amount of Rs. 3,56,85,000/-as per the ready reckoner rates and sales value was thus assessed. The very said amount has been assessed on substantive basis in both

VEENA M DALAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD II) CR 7, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Smt. Veena M. Dalal, Dcit(Osd Ii), Central Range-7, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, 42, Chitrakoot, Altamount Road, Vs. 101 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026. Pan: Acbpd4089R (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment completed. 2. On Facts and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing exemption under Section 54 F of the Income tax Act 1961, (the act). 3. On facts and in law, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Goa property was not transferred during the year and thereby erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ABDUL KAYUM AHMED MOHD. TAMBOLI, MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. 3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above ground be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. As evident, the primary subject matter of appeal is to determine the question of accrual of certain income. 2.1 We have carefully heard the rival submissions