JALALUDDIN MOHAMMED ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1)(4) MUMBAI, BANDRA EAST

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jalaluddin Mohammed Ali Khan, Ito Ward-26(1)(4), A/9 Sharif Market Laxminarayan Pratyakshakar Bhavan C-11 Vs. Mandir Road, Off Kherani Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakinaka, S.O. Bandra East, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Anppk 9394 P Appellant Respondent

section 56(2)(vii)(b) are applicable. 56(2)(vii)(b) are applicable. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is an Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is an Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 17.10.2016 declaring

DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RANKIN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

vii), (viia) which are also on taxability of similar receipts 2.22) Further it also pertinent to refer to Explanation (a) to section 56(2)(viib) which refers to Rule 11U and Rule 11UA for determining the fair market value of shares. These rules are the computational machinery of the charging section 56(2)(viib). On perusal of Rule

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

56(2) : In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head “Income from other sources”, namely :— [(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

56(vii) etc. It was also held that as per the provisions of law prevailing during the year under consideration, the gift received by one corporate body from another corporate bodies do not come under the ambit of income as contemplated under section 2(24) or any other provisions of the Act. While referring and following the decision

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

56(vii) etc. It was also held that as per the provisions of law prevailing during the year under consideration, the gift received by one corporate body from another corporate bodies do not come under the ambit of income as contemplated under section 2(24) or any other provisions of the Act. While referring and following the decision

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

vii) was inserted w.e.f. 1 October 2009 to tax the receipt of money or any property whose value exceeds Rs. 50,000 without consideration or for inadequate consideration by any individual or HUF subject to certain exclusions. sub section 2 clause (viia) was inserted w.e.f. 1 June 2010 to tax the receipt of shares of a closely held company

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 56

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

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

68,190/- during the relevant year. The stamp duty value for the said property is Rs. 27,19,39,000/- The appellant has not disputed the stamp duty value of the property. 8. The appellant contends that a partnership firm named M/S Vanshree Developers then not consisting of appellant as one of the partners entered in to an agreement

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

68,28,325 3. Khorakiwala Holdings Investments Pvt Ltd 55,91,132 25 ITA 726/Mum/2021 SA 162/Mum/2021 6,58,97,757 Assessee also submitted that above gift is supported by the mandates of the board of directors in form of resolutions passed at their board meetings of those donor companies. The assessee claimed that the above gift of shares from

DY CIT. CIRCLE-1, THANE vs. M/S TRAVECOM GLOBAL P. LTD., BHAYANDER

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle 1 V. M/S. Travecom Global Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 22, B-Wing B/607, Krishnakunj 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Salasar Brij Bhoomi Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W)-401101 Thane (W)-400604 Pan: Aaect8729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

section 56(2) (viib) of the IT Act, 1961 needs to be deleted. Without prejudice to the above: 1. Provisions were never meant to be applied on genuine transactions There is another very important angle that here the shares have not been subscribed by any sister concern or closely related person, but by outside investors who have seen certain

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

vii) or (viia) so as to be held taxable under the head income of other source. This has been explained in the explanatory note at the time of insertion of clause (x) of the Section 56(2) by the P a g e | 48 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 Finance

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

vii) or (viia) so as to be held taxable under the head income of other source. This has been explained in the explanatory note at the time of insertion of clause (x) of the Section 56(2) by the P a g e | 48 ITA No. 2715/MUM/2018 & 3084/MUM/2018 Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd,; A.Y. 2012-13 Finance

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)

vii)(b) being the difference in Stamp Duty Valuation and the purchase consideration paid, for the reason that though the assessee disputed valuation no reference was made to the Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer, when remand report was called for by the Ld.CIT(A) as the assessee furnished nearest sale instances as comparables even at that stage the Assessing

ACIT CIRCLE 4.3.1, MUMBAI vs. JUST DIAL LTD, MUMBAI

vii) and section\n115 JB of the Act, deal with different subject matter for the purpose of\ntaxation. Even though the term property is not defined in section 115 JB of\nthe Act, however in the Act, the terms “property” and “asset” have been used\ninterchangeably. Even the definition of the term \"capital asset\" in section

VYANKATESH NARAYAN KULKARNI,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 3(4) , THANE

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vyankatesh Narayan Kulkarni, Ito-3(4), 301 Sunflower Tower, Kharkar Ali Ashar It Part, 6Th Floor, Road No. Vs. Road, Parvati Bhavan, 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West-400604. Thane West-400604. Pan No. Agmpk 6406 E Appellant Respondent

section 56(2) (vii)(c) are not applicable in the (vii)(c) are not applicable in the instant case. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee filed return of income on Briefly stated, the assessee filed return of income on Briefly stated, the assessee filed return of income on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of ₹9,80,480/ 31.08.2015 declarin

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

vii)(v) read with section 50C amount to Rs.79,62,000/- which works out total amount to Rs.17,33,88,833/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the assessee's submission, the exemption under section 11 is considered and the entire addition is deleted. Ld. CIT(A) has considered the Proviso

ASHUTOSH SINHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68,000/- which is more or less similar to the agreement value of Rs.6,05,00,000/-. Assessee requested to refer the case of the DVO in case of disagreement. The ld. AO held that the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted because the provision of Section 56(2)(vii

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FINPROJECT INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

section 56(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4.5.5 the following guiding factors laid down by various courts have been considered in concluding that the amounts received by assesse are taxable in the hands of assessee under the head income from the other sources: There must be an identification sources - Before a particular amount can be characterized

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

56, Pg. 577 of LPB. c.) Whether the amendment to section 2(15) made by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/04/2016 would apply retrospectively for the impugned assessment year? Finding of the CIT(A): The CIT(A) has held that the amendment to section 2(15) made by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/04/2016 would apply prospectively