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

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

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

DCIT -26(1) , MUMBAI vs. SHREYAS BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2404/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-17(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Builders Room No. 117, 1St Floor, G- A-42, 4Th Floor Roop Vs. Block, Kautliya Bhavan, Darshan, Juhu Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aapfs5485E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Dr. Kishor Dhule (Cit,Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit”], Delhi Dated 08.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Revenue Has Agitated The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Holding That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & Therefore The Plot Of Land Held By It Was In Nature Of ‘Stock-In-Trade’ As Opposed To The Ao’S Action Of Holding The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’. According To Revenue Therefore, Since The Said Plot Of Land To Be In Nature Of ‘Capital Asset’, The Levy Of Capital Gains Tax Stood Triggered Upon Execution Of Joint Development Agreement (Herein

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 stood fulfilled, to invoke Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. For this, he cited on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT (supra), as relied upon by the AO. 8. Per contra, the Ld. AR for the assessee supported the findings

K T DONGRE & CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S. K.T. Dongre & Co. P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1) C/O. Shyam Malpani & Assocaites Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 307, Chartered House Vs. Mumbai 400020 297/299, Dr. C.H. Street Mumbai 400002 Pan – Aaack9366J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Gopal Respondent By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-21, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2013 & It Relates To A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: - “1. The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred As "Cit (A)") Has Erred Confirming The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Making Addition Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,90,67,850/- Based On Agreement For Sale Dated 12.10.2007 Entered Into With M/S. Nensee Construction Pvt. Ltd. Inspite Of The Fact That There Is No Performance On The Part Of The Concerned Parties In Relation To The Such Agreement Of Sale. Therefore, There Is No Transfer Or Deemed Transfer Within The Meaning Of Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Question Of Taxing Such Capital Gains Which Had Not Been Accrued Or Deemed To Had Been Accrued Does Not Arise. Such Long Term Capital Gain Has Been Worked Out By Considering The Sale Consideration At Rs.5,34,02,500/- As Against Agreement Price Of Rs.1,80,00,000/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Utter Disregard To The Pending Litigations I.E. The Company Petition No.809 Of 2003 Filed By An Alleged Creditor For Winding Up Of The Assessee Company & Also A Cloud In The Title Due

price of `1,80,00,000/- by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act 4 M/s. K.T. Dongre & Co. P. Ltd./Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1) in utter disregard to the pending litigation. The learned A.R. further submitted that a company petition No. 809 of 2003 was filed by the alleged creditor for winding

ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI vs. JAWAHARLAL L AGICHA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit 17(3) Shri Jawaharlal L. Agicha R.No.614, 6Th Floor, 99, Ray Road, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400033 Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adjpa2926K Revenue By Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit-Dr) Respondent By Shri Hiro Rai (Ar)

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 (4 of 1882), or 3.2.8 . In the facts of present case there is no transfer under clause (i) of sec. 2(47) in as much as no registered conveyance deed is executed by assessee. The capital asset in question is land and is immovable property. The provisions

VIJAY ALLOYS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalvijay Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 12, Happy Home, 244, Waterfield Road ……………. Appellant Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan – Aaacv2951J

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, clearly get attracted. Hence, the Assessing Officer was justified in computing capital gain in the impugned assessment year. 12. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Undisputed facts are, on 20th April 2006, the assessee has executed registered

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

53A of the Transfer of prop Transfer of property Act, 1882. The Developer is merely given erty Act, 1882. The Developer is merely given license to enter upon the said property for the purpose of license to enter upon the said property for the purpose of license to enter upon the said property for the purpose of development

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

53A of the Transfer of prop Transfer of property Act, 1882. The Developer is merely given erty Act, 1882. The Developer is merely given license to enter upon the said property for the purpose of license to enter upon the said property for the purpose of license to enter upon the said property for the purpose of development

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

53A of the Transfer of prop Transfer of property Act, 1882. The Developer is merely given erty Act, 1882. The Developer is merely given license to enter upon the said property for the purpose of license to enter upon the said property for the purpose of license to enter upon the said property for the purpose of development

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

53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even based on part performance of the contract. We find that the ld CITA had also observed that possession was not handed over to the Developer by the assessee society. This fact was not controverted by the revenue before us. Accordingly, there cannot be any incidence of capital gains. Hence the answer

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed quashing reopening of assessment and deleting addition on the merits

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Standard Chartered Bank The Dy. Director Of Income- Crescenzo, Tax(International Taxation)- 7Th Floor, C38-39, 2(1), Vs. G Block Bandra Kurla Complex , 1St Floor, Scindia House, Bandra East N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 038 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs4681D Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

price and market value for stamp duty in Assessment Year 2005-06. 7. Based on this direction, the learned Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 15th October, 2012, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹919,16,65,573/- therein, the only addition was of ₹9,49,08,709/- , being difference in actual sales consideration and Fair market

SUPERMAX PERSONAL CARE P.LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT (LTU)-1, MUMBAI

pricing of the 37,600 shares issued, agreed with the submissions made by the assessee and made no adjustments with respect thereto , that it was not explained as to how the AO made the assertion that STCG had occurred to the assessee,that it had not transferred any capital asset,that it had only acquired the business of VMPL

ACIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI vs. BHAVANI N. MEHTA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

53A, the following conditions need to be fulfilled. There should be a contract for consideration; it should be in writing; it should be signed by the transferor; it should pertain to transfer of immovable property; the transferee should have taken possession of the property; lastly, the transferee should be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Even

DAMJI J GALA,KHANDILKAR ROAD vs. ITO 19(1)(4), TARDEO ROAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

price of the property on date of\nextinguishing tenancy right as cost of acquisition to the assessee\ncannot be accepted.\n(vii) The assessee relied upon the judgement of jurisdictional High\nCourt in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT [260\nITR 491] wherein the issue decided was in respect of \"Development\nAgreement\" which is not applicable to assessee

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

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. UDAY KASHINATH SATHE, THANE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Uday Kashinath Sathe, Ward-3(4), 403,404, Happy Valley Phase बनाम/ Room No.9, B-Wing, Vi, Manpada, Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Nr. Tikujiniwadi, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Adups7623L

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, took place in the financial year 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07 and the assessee having invested a sum of Rs.25 lakhs in December, 2005, it claimed deduction thereof under section 54EC of the Act. The AO was, however, of the view that the assessee having entered into contract with the builder

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Thus, for application of provisions of section 54, the appellant has to buy a property as an owner. Provisions of section 54 are exemption provisions and, therefore, in case two interpretations are possible i.e. whether appellant should acquire the new residential house as owner

ANIL PANNALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

price of flat and stamp duty value was added by the AO which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A), the operative portion is contained in para 7 and 8 and the same is reproduced herein below: After careful consideration of the submissions made by the assessee, the assessment order, and the case laws cited, I find that the appeal