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

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

viii) any work of art; or\n(ix) bullion;\n16. At the outset, it is evident that the aforesaid definition is restricted for\nthe purpose of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. We find that in JCIT v/s Saheli\nLeasing & Industries Ltd., reported in [2010] 324 ITR 170, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court observed as follows

APARNA SANDEEP KULKARANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAX WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

viii. However, the stamp duty differential value of Rs. 1,35,93,400/- and Rs. 67,30,380/- should be attributable to the additional area for the purposes of Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and therefore, the rate comes to Rs. 1,39,890/- PSM (Rs.68,63,020/-). ix. Therefore, the rate

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

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

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

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

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

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

viii) the assessee obtain the assessee obtained possession of its share of possession of its share of constructed property in the previous year corresponding constructed property in the previous year corresponding constructed property in the previous year corresponding to assessment year 2012 assessment year 2012-13. According to the assessee in 13. According to the assessee in view

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, 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

viii) the assessee obtain the assessee obtained possession of its share of possession of its share of constructed property in the previous year corresponding constructed property in the previous year corresponding constructed property in the previous year corresponding to assessment year 2012 assessment year 2012-13. According to the assessee in 13. According to the assessee in view

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, 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

viii) the assessee obtain the assessee obtained possession of its share of possession of its share of constructed property in the previous year corresponding constructed property in the previous year corresponding constructed property in the previous year corresponding to assessment year 2012 assessment year 2012-13. According to the assessee in 13. According to the assessee in view

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)

viii) Discussion with the Senior Executives of the company. (ix) Working capital requirement based on Management's plans and projections; (x) Capital expenditures requirements based on Management's plans and projections etc. The three methods which are commonly used in this kind of a valuation of shares are: (a) The Profit Earning Capacity Value (PECV) Method, which presumes the continuity

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

viii) any work of art; or\n(ix) bullion;\n16. At the outset, it is evident that the aforesaid definition is restricted for\nthe purpose of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. We find that in JCIT v/s Saheli\nLeasing & Industries Ltd., reported in [2010] 324 ITR 170, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court observed as follows

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

viii. if and only if the arrangement could be termed as a demerger u/s 2 (19 AA) of the act then only the appellant would be entitled to exemption from application of provisions of Section 2 (22) (a) of the act. Assessee fails to prove so and therefore deemed dividend is chargeable to tax. ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

viii. if and only if the arrangement could be termed as a demerger u/s 2 (19 AA) of the act then only the appellant would be entitled to exemption from application of provisions of Section 2 (22) (a) of the act. Assessee fails to prove so and therefore deemed dividend is chargeable to tax. ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim

JUST DIAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

viii) any work of art; or (ix) bullion; 16. At the outset, it is evident that the aforesaid definition is restricted for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. We find that in JCIT v/s Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd., reported in [2010] 324 ITR 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: – “(vi) A particular

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

viii) any work of art; or (ix) bullion; 16. At the outset, it is evident that the aforesaid definition is restricted for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. We find that in JCIT v/s Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd., reported in [2010] 324 ITR 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: – “(vi) A particular

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

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2020-

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

viii) any work of art; or (ix) bullion; 16. At the outset, it is evident that the aforesaid definition is restricted for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. We find that in JCIT v/s Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd., reported in [2010] 324 ITR 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: – “(vi) A particular