M/S SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before us. As of now, those issues are infructuous and do not call for any adjudication at this stage.” 4.1. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs.3

SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIECLE-4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

50C(1), as elaborated above, we see no need to deal with other issues raised in the appeal before us. As of now, those issues are infructuous and do not call for any adjudication at this stage.” 4.1. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs.3

RADHARAMAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Radharaman Constructions Asst. Cit, Circle – 19(3), Ground Floor, Shri Kunj, Mumbai 3A Altamount Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 026

5, page 4 held that the words 'land and building' in Section 50C do not refer to immovable property as a whole. 20. n the case of ITO v Balkawade Dhanaji, ITA No. 686/P/2013 dated 30.10.2014, (Pune)(Trib.) held that the provisions of section 50C of the Act are not applicable as the same are to be applied

ITO 22(3)(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MEGHI PARBAT PATEL, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-22(3)(2) Shri Meghji Parbat Patel, 3Rd Floor, Room No.307, Prop. G.D.Enterprises, बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Rly Flat B-5, Plot No.46, Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Anand Niketan Chs, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Afmpp7902H

5 Shri Meghji Parbat Patel ITA Nos.6390/Mum/2014 “1. The Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the provisions of section 50C of the Act are not applicable in respect of leasehold rights in foreshore land. 2. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete

PRATAP RATAN DAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1272/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

5 Pratap Ratan Das vs. ITO The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of V.R. Palani Swamy vs. Union of India (180 Taxman 2.e3) had held that section 48 provides for mode of computation of capital gains and section 50C has been introduced from 1.4.2003 by Finance Act. 2002. The conspectus of the provision

FARID GULMOHAMED,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farid Gulmohamed Income Tax Officer C/O. M/S. B.C. Dastur & Co. (Internationla Tax) 3(1) Vs. Reliance Bldg., 3Rd Floor Schindia House, Ballard Estate 269, D.N. Road, Mumbai Mumbai 400038 Pan - Aefpg3094K Appellant Respondent

section 50C of the Act are not attracted in case of transfer of leasehold rights in land, the learned A.R. 5 Shri Farid Gulmohamed for the assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements of various Benches of the ITAT: - (i) ACIT vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani (ITA No. 100/Mum/2013 dated 09.10.2015) (ii) Kumarpal Mohanlal Jain

MOHD RAZA AKBERALI GHUGHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

section 50C should be deleted and the exemption of Capital Gain claimed by the Appellant u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, may be accepted and the Assessing Officer may be directed to modify his assessment accordingly.” 3 Mohd Raza Adberali 2. In this case it has been noted that the appeal has been filed late before the Tribunal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI vs. GAURAV INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Room No.656, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 ............... Appellant V/S Gaurav Investments, 1St Floor, B & C Block, Tradelink, E-Wing, ……………… Respondent Kamala Mill Compounds, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aadfg0064D

68,990 11,46,31,010 2 Fair Market Value as per 20,08,13,000 12,40,66,000 12,48,65,000 DVO 3 Difference 33,13,000 86,97,010 1,02,33,990 4 Difference in % 1.68% 7.54% 8.93% 5 7. We find that while considering the similar issue regarding the applicability of a higher tolerance

NUTRELA MARKETING P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

68 (Bom). 4.4 The Ld.AR submitted that section 50C deals with transfer of capital assets being, land or building or both. He submitted that it does not deal with capital assets as defined u/s.2(14) of the Act. He submitted that the nature of the assets transferred in the 6 ITA No.3910/Mum/2010; A.Y. 2006-07 Nutrela Marketing

DCIT 42 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR TRILOKNATH GOYAL, MUMBAI

Accordingly\nwe see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) who has deleted the\naddition made by the AO under section 43CA of the Act.\n16.\nIn result, appeal filed by the revenue i...

68 cannot be sustained. In\nview of this discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the\nCIT(A) in allowing the issue in favour of the assessee.\nAddition under section 43CA\n8.\nThe assessee with regard to the addition made by the AO submitted the\nbelow table:\nSr.No.\nFlat No.\nSale Value (Rs.)\nValue

KISHOR HIRA BHANDARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodshri Kishore Hira Bhandari I.T.O 30(2)(1) Kishore Bhandari Chawl, Mumbai Behind Mamta Medical Store, Vs. Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400064

section 50C, he will be at liberty to seek the matter being referred to the DVO for valuation, again as on 29.6.2005, of the said property. As a corollary thereto, the subsequent developments in respect of the property sold (e.g. the conversion of use of land) are to be ignored. It is on this basis that the capital gains

DCIT 1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. PIROJ PALACE P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), M/S Piroj Palace P. Ltd., R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, 134 Nagindas Master Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Fort, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aafcp0219E (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 171/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.857/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Piroj Palace P. Ltd., The D.C.I.T. 1(2)(2), 2Nd Floor, 134 Nagindas Master R. No. 535, 5Th Floor, Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aafcp0219E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

Section 50C in the present case. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relying on the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the order of the Mumbai Tribunal rendered in the case of Voltas Ltd. vs. ITO (Mumbai) (2016) 74 taxmann.com

SHRI MOHD. ILYAS ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

5 Shri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari filed this valuation report disputing the valuation made by the Stamp Valuation Authority. However, the Assessing Officer did not refer the matter of valuation to the District Valuation Officer, though the valuation of stamp valuation authority was disputed by the assessee by way of valuation report. The Assessing Officer made an addition

KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs.6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).

68,32,379/- after making addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- to the returned income of INR.1,33,14,710/-. Being aggrieved, the Assessee challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A). Vide order dated, 26/03/2024, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI vs. USV LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

5 The Ld. CIT(A) erred by inadvertently referring to para 6 of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in the Appellant's own case in AY 2009-10 [which is in context of certain eligible expenses of Rs.21,87,858/-(i.e. setting-up of effluent treatment plant, etc.) incurred by the Appellant but not considered by Department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI vs. USV LIMITED , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

5 The Ld. CIT(A) erred by inadvertently referring to para 6 of the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in the Appellant's own case in AY 2009-10 [which is in context of certain eligible expenses of Rs.21,87,858/-(i.e. setting-up of effluent treatment plant, etc.) incurred by the Appellant but not considered by Department

KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 9 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 8/Mum/2020 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Koradia Construction Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- C-402, Gokul Divine, Irla, S V 9(2)(2), Rn. 225, Churchgate, Vs. Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 056 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaack9154E अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Smt. Smita Verma, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2021

50C will not apply nor the provision of Section 68 of the Act but to this the provision of Section 43CA of the Act are applicable which deals with determination of full value of consideration for assets other than capital asset. But the Provision of Section 40CA was brought into force while Finance Act, 2013 and accordingly

IVOR D'MELLO (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ETTIE B. D'MELLO),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

5. VoltAs Ltd. Vs. ITO (2016) 161 ITD 199 (Mumbai-Trib) (Para 3.8 to 3.11) Provisions of Section 50C could not be applied to transfer of development rights of the land owned by assessee. 6. CIT Vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates (P.) Ltd. – [(2017) 389 ITR 68