DEEPA PAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ms. Deepa Pamnani Vs. The Income Tax Officer Pamnanai Hospital & Ward 20(1)(1) Research Center Piramal Chamber 33 Cf +6Qc , Railway Station Lal Baug Road, Prem Colony, Mandasur Mumbai 400012 Madhya Pradesh 458001 Pan Cstpp4472L (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Ca & Mr. Kapil Jain Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

68. ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has order in announcing the long-term capital gain on sale of shares by denying the appellant’s claim of exemption under section 54F

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JAY BHARAT MEHTA, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 54F of the Act) observing that the Assessee was joint owner of the residential house purchased alongwith his wife and therefore, the Assessee held only 50% share in the aforesaid new residential house. However, the Assessing Officer recorded that no separate addition was being made as the total sale proceeds of INR.1,68

SIDDHARTH BHASKER SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 27, MUMBAI ( NAVI MUMBAI)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 2169/MUM/2025\nAssessment Year: 2021-22\nSiddharth Bhasker Shah\n803 Indraprastha Neelkanth valley,\nRajwadi, Gghatkopar east,\nMumbai - 400077\n(PAN: BIGPS6015Q)\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nPrinciple Commissioner of\nIncome Tax- 27,\nNavi Mumbai\n(Respondent)\nPresent for:\nAssessee\nRevenue\n: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CA\n: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR\nDate of Hearing\n: 07.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\

Section 54F was available to the Assessee and hence the directions of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax were on account of change of opinion.\n4. The Appellant prays that, the Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act dated 27.03.2025 passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax be annulled, squashed and set aside. 5. The aforesaid Grounds of Appeal

SUNIL MOHANLAL LAHORI,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM OF INCOMT TAX -22(1) (CURRENT JURIDICTION), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sunil Mohanlal Lahori, Dy. Cit-22(1), 9, Janta Industrial Income Tax Office, Piramal Compound, 162 Senapati Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400012. (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaapl 4422 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/05/2023 Order

68, disallowance disallowance disallowance of of of Brokerage Brokerage Brokerage and and and disallowance of deduction under section 54F

KHALID SAYED ,DELHI vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

68,923/- was invested in residential property and in the return filed by submitting a detailed note claimed the TDS, which was refunded to the Assessee. 2.4 However thereafter vide order dated 30.10.2020 u/s 154 of the Act passed by the AO/CPC, the disallowance of Rs.11,38,080/- was made . 3. The Assessee being aggrieved against the said order dated

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

Section 54/ 54F of the Act as it is computed as short term capital gain. 011. Alternatively, he held that net sale consideration is ₹57 lacs and only ₹44,31,840/- were invested for purchase of new house property by the assessee before due date of filing of the return, thus, ₹12,68

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

68,25,750/- in the following manner :- "Income from Capital Gain Long Term A 22 WESTEND COLONY Consideration as per Collaboration Agreement 40,000,000.00 Less Index cost for pur. of Rs. 1575000 (Fair Value as on 1-04-81) 8,174,250.00 31,825,750.00 Less : Exemption under section 54EC (REC Bonds

MADHU B KHATRI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s claim of deduction is allowed

Bench: Confirming The Sale Consideration Determined By Ld. Ao On Adopting The Market Value Of 2 Residential Flats, Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

54F." h) Prem Praknsh Bhutani vs. ACIT 31 SOT38 (Del-ITAT) "Assessing Officer held Unit benefit of section 54 could be given only in respect of one residential house acquired by assessee and not for a spate of residential houses which he constructed out of consideration received - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) opined that exemption under section

ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI vs. VARUN JAISINGH ASHER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri. Girish Agrawalito -19(3)(1), Mumbai Varun Jaisingh Asher Room No.405, 4Th Floor, Piramal Arkade Rise, 17Th Floor, 31-A, Vs. Chambers, Lower Parel Mumbai Carmichael Road, Cumballa Hills, 400012 Mumbai 400026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiapa1791N (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,99,000/- made under section 56(2)(x) is hereby deleted and the claim of exemption under section 54F

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within

JITENDRA M KITAVAT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

68, read with sections 45 and 54F, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Undisclosed income v. LTCG

ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. JITENDRA MADANLAL KITAWAT (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

68, read with sections 45 and 54F, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Undisclosed income v. LTCG

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68, read with sections 45 and 54F, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Undisclosed income v. LTCG

ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68, read with sections 45 and 54F, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Undisclosed income v. LTCG

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68, read with sections 45 and 54F, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Undisclosed income v. LTCG

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

68, read with sections 45 and 54F, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Undisclosed income v. LTCG

ITO 21 (1) (5), MUMBAI vs. JAYA DEEPAK BHAVNANI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer-21(1)(5) Smt. Jaya Deepak Bhavnani Room No. 120, 1St Floor 407, Sun Industrial Estate Vs. Piramal Chambers Sunmil Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400012 Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaapb7618R Appellant Respondent

68,000/-. The AO denied exemption under Section 54 F and added the same on the ground that capital gain resulting from sale of depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Act is short term capital gain and therefore no exemption of the same can be claimed under Section 54F

VIVEK VENUGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargmr.Vivek Venugopal, “N”Block, 15Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600040 Pan:Aebt3112P ... Appellant Vs.

54F of Rs.28,85,426/- instead of Rs.25.00 lacs allowed by the CIT(Appeals). Thus, on this aspect assessee succeeds. 6. The other issue raised in this appeal is an addition of Rs.12,51,000/- made by the lower authorities by invoking the provisions of section 68