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

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

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

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

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

2 and 3 of the appeal as well as raised of the appeal as well as raised by the assessee in ground No. see in ground No. 1 of its appeal. Pankaj Enterprises ITA NO. 3773, 4875 & 12. The assessee in its computation of long The assessee in its computation of long-term capital gain has term capital gain

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C section (3) of section 50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () Before Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C section (3) of section 50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable

JOSEPH MUDALIAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

price was lower. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs. 150000/ being development charges paid to builders for 4 flats & bank interest of Rs.173308/- paid during construction period while calculating long term capital gain, ignoring the fact that these cost were capitalized in the books, thereby increasing the long term capital gain by Rs.569723/-. 3. The Learned

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2), that wherever an assessee claims that the actual market rate is less than the stamp duty valuation, he can have the matter referred

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

transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2), that wherever an assessee claims that the actual market rate is less than the stamp duty valuation, he can have the matter referred

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2), that wherever an assessee claims that the actual market rate is less than the stamp duty valuation, he can have the matter referred

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2), that wherever an assessee claims that the actual market rate is less than the stamp duty valuation, he can have the matter referred

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

2) 5.1 In the additional grounds and the grounds at S. Nos. 1 & 3 the assessee alleges that the authorities below 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 transfer of leasehold rights. The learned A.R. for the assessee vehemently argued that

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

2) 5.1 In the additional grounds and the grounds at S. Nos. 1 & 3 the assessee alleges that the authorities below 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 transfer of leasehold rights. The learned A.R. for the assessee vehemently argued that

THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/ JT/ DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

50C, Section 92 of the Act (Section 92 has been discussed in detail in following paragraph) etc. The income received and computed as per the provisions of the Act has to be accepted by the revenue as the taxable income.  Transfer pricing provisions as contained under Sections 92 to 92F of the Act, read with Rules

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)

transfer. Second, the assessee does not dispute the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority by way of filing any appeal or revision before any other authority, court or High Court. 12. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is submitted that both the conditions specified in section 50C(2

ITO 32(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF VAIBHAV CO-OP. HSG. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Ito-32(3)(4) Vs. State Bank Of India Staff Room No.103, 1St Floor Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.8/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5324/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2011-12) State Bank Of India Vs. Ito-32(3)(4) Room No.103, 1St Floor Staff Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia Assessee By Shri Dr. P. Daniel Date Of Hearing 13/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

50C of the Act? 8.2. It would be relevant to get into the definition of „transfer‟ as per section 2(47) of the Act which is reproduced as under:- (47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,— (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset ; or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein ; or 16 ITA No.5324/Mum/2016

AXIA INFOSERVE LLP,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2), that wherever an assessee claims that the actual market rate is less than the stamp duty valuation, he can have the matter referred

THE NAVYUG CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

price. It was thus argued that the impugned MOU could not have given effect to any type of transfer of title and that’s why the assessee had disclosed the amount of capital gain in the year under consideration. Under these circumstances, provisions of section 50C are mandatorily to be applied while assessing correct amount of capital gain

THE AZAD NAGAR, COOPERATIVE HOUSING, SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Vithal Nagar Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd., Pratyakshkar बनाम/ 51 N.S.S. Rd No.11, Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Jia Hind Club, Jvpd Scheme, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400056 Mumbai- 400050 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat3055F Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Navyug Co. Operative Cit-21 Housing Society Ltd. Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Plot No. 51 Jain Hind Club Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Gldg. N.S. Rd No.11, Jai Hind Bandra (E) Society Jvpd Scheme Vile Mumbai- 400050 Parle (W) Mumbai-400049 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaaat0325L Assessment Year: 2004-05

price. It was thus argued that the impugned MOU could not have given effect to any type of transfer of title and that’s why the assessee had disclosed the amount of capital gain in the year under consideration. Under these circumstances, provisions of section 50C are mandatorily to be applied while assessing correct amount of capital gain