PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 50C are not applicable on transfer of provisions of section 50C are not applicable on transfer of provisions of section 50C are not applicable on transfer of development rights. The said finding of the Ld CIT(A) is reproduced ts. The said finding of the Ld CIT(A) is reproduced ts. The said finding

FUTURA POLYSTERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. In sum and substance, the Hon‘ble Apex Court had observed, that in terms of Sec. 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will be completed only

FUTURA POLYSTERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. In sum and substance, the Hon‘ble Apex Court had observed, that in terms of Sec. 2(47)(v) of the Act, transfer of any immovable property in part performance of a contract of the nature referred in Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will be completed only

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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Hence, this . does not advance the case of the appellant. 4.19 The final aspect that deserves to be dwelt upon is that the Legislative intent in introducing section 50C of the Act was to curb the deliberate under-valuation of immovable property as a tool of tax-avoidance. Allowing Development Agreements

PARADISE TEXTILES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

68, Brij Mumbai Vs. Kutir, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai-400006 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAACP7725L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Naresh Kumar राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Rajat Mittal -DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 28/11/2017 28/11/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश

PARADISE TEXTILES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

68, Brij Mumbai Vs. Kutir, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai-400006 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAACP7725L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Naresh Kumar राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Rajat Mittal -DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 28/11/2017 28/11/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश

ACIT 30(3), MUMBAI vs. SURATCHANDRA B. THAKKAR -HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-30(3), Shri Suratchandra B. Thakkar C-13, 5Th Floor, R. No. 510, (Huf), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tipco Compound, Rani Sati Bandra (East), Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aaaht 0788 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

68,399 for Tower & II (Advance), for A.Y. 2007-08, Rs. Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) ITA Nos. 4333 to 4335/M/2018 96,04,258/- for Tower & II (Advance) and for A.Y. 2008 for Tower & II (Advance) and for A.Y. 2008 for Tower & II (Advance) and for A.Y. 2008-09, Rs. 6,22,38,750 for Tower

ACIT 30(3), MUMBAI vs. SURATCHANDRA B. THAKKAR -HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-30(3), Shri Suratchandra B. Thakkar C-13, 5Th Floor, R. No. 510, (Huf), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tipco Compound, Rani Sati Bandra (East), Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aaaht 0788 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

68,399 for Tower & II (Advance), for A.Y. 2007-08, Rs. Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) ITA Nos. 4333 to 4335/M/2018 96,04,258/- for Tower & II (Advance) and for A.Y. 2008 for Tower & II (Advance) and for A.Y. 2008 for Tower & II (Advance) and for A.Y. 2008-09, Rs. 6,22,38,750 for Tower

ACIT 30(3), MUMBAI vs. SURATCHANDRA B. THAKKAR -HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-30(3), Shri Suratchandra B. Thakkar C-13, 5Th Floor, R. No. 510, (Huf), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tipco Compound, Rani Sati Bandra (East), Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400097. Pan No. Aaaht 0788 G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

68,399 for Tower & II (Advance), for A.Y. 2007-08, Rs. Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) ITA Nos. 4333 to 4335/M/2018 96,04,258/- for Tower & II (Advance) and for A.Y. 2008 for Tower & II (Advance) and for A.Y. 2008 for Tower & II (Advance) and for A.Y. 2008-09, Rs. 6,22,38,750 for Tower

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

53A is within jurisdiction arid valid. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The first issue that came up for our consideration from assessee’s appeal in grounds 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(ii) is with regard to the validity of additions made

PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpyramid Developers, 2Nd Floor, Sharda Bhavan, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 400 005, Pan: Aaifp1958J ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 32(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Respondent

53A. Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already

DCIT ,CC- 8(4), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK R. RUIA (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

53A of the Transfer of Property Act for the impugned assessment year 1999- 2000. In order to make out such a case, the Assessing Officer has refused to look into the events, which followed after 31-3-1999. If the Assessing Officer read the entire episode as a whole, the Assessing Officer would know that there was no actual transfer

VINA VIREN AHUJA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 47, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

68 of the Act in the assessment order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act which is illegal and bad in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the addition of '48,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer while passing the order u/s.153A r.w.s

INCOME TAX OFFICER-9(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.AVRUTI MALL MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiito-9(1)(4) Vs. M/S Avruti Mall Room No.260A, 2Nd Floor Management Company Aaykar Bhawan,M.K.Road Private Limited 3Rd Floor, Jay Chambers, Mumbai-400 020 Service Road,Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafca5084N Appellant) .. Respondent)

68,93,840 CWIP:Rs.2,33,57,673 Rs.10,02,51,513 31. As regards the head of income, there is no dispute that sale transactions is to be assessed as business income. Considering the facts of the case, the AR agreed with same taxing treatment. The taxable business income for said land/land-WIP sale/transfer is accordingly worked out as under

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act instead of assessing the net capital gains earned thereon. 4. The additional ground so raised by the assessee is purely legal. Keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Thermal Power Corporation, 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act instead of assessing the net capital gains earned thereon. 4. The additional ground so raised by the assessee is purely legal. Keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of National Thermal Power Corporation, 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India

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

68 ignoring the fact that the said amount pertains to the commission of Rs.1,79,400 (net of TDS) that is already disallowed by the learned AO and confirmed M/s Crescent Construction Co. by the learned CIT(A). The addition leading to taxing the amount twice is bad in law and needs to be deleted. 7. The appellant craves leave

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

68 ignoring the fact that the said amount pertains to the commission of Rs.1,79,400 (net of TDS) that is already disallowed by the learned AO and confirmed M/s Crescent Construction Co. by the learned CIT(A). The addition leading to taxing the amount twice is bad in law and needs to be deleted. 7. The appellant craves leave