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

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

MAIMOON FASHION ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaimoon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd., 645, Maimoon House, Mohili Village, A.K. Road, J.B. Nagar S.O., Mumbai – 400059 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaccm3307P

price and consideration of Rs. 31,00.000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs only). E. Pursuant to the oral agreement the Purchaser arranged for the payment of the said sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs only) to the Vendor vide Cheque No. 086101 dated 24.10.2009 drawn on Bank of India, Dr. D.N. Road Branch, Mumbai. The said payment

MR GAJANAN PARSHURAM KHISMATRAO,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(2), KALYAN

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) ; or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

VISWAAT CHEMICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-54, EARNEST HOUSE

In the result, original grounds no

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalviswaat Chemicals Limited, 909/910 Eco Star, Vishweshwar Nagar, Behind Udupi Vihae Hotel, Mumbai-400 063 Pan: Aaacv4184B ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cen. Cir. 6(3), 102, 1St Floor, Earnest House, Ncpa Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 ..... Respondent

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), the date on which he has so taken or retained possession of such land or part ;] (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), where an asset representing an expenditure of a capital nature [incurred before the 1st day of April 1967,] ceases to be used in a previous

MAHADHAN AGRITECH LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMARTECHEM TECHNOLOGIES LTD ) ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-50, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. (Formerly Cit(A)-50, Dcit Cen. 8(1), Known As Smartchem Technologies 656, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd.), Mumbai-400021. Survey No. 93, Sai Hira, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. Pan No. Aacca 5046 P Appellant Respondent

section 153A of the fresh claim. Therefore, Therefore, respectfully, following the finding of the following the finding of the Special Bench in the case of SEW Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), the Special Bench in the case of SEW Infrastructure Ltd. ( Special Bench in the case of SEW Infrastructure Ltd. ( claim of the assessee claim of the assessee for provision for doubtful

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

section as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment years under reference years under reference, so the question of abatement has to be on of abatement has to be examined as to whether the limitation for issue

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

section as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment years under reference years under reference, so the question of abatement has to be on of abatement has to be examined as to whether the limitation for issue

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

section as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment years under reference years under reference, so the question of abatement has to be on of abatement has to be examined as to whether the limitation for issue

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

section as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment years under reference years under reference, so the question of abatement has to be on of abatement has to be examined as to whether the limitation for issue

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

section as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment years under reference years under reference, so the question of abatement has to be on of abatement has to be examined as to whether the limitation for issue

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

section as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment years under reference years under reference, so the question of abatement has to be on of abatement has to be examined as to whether the limitation for issue

SHRI KANNAN KASHI VISHWANATHAN,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT CC-5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

section as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment as on the date of search in relation to assessment years under reference years under reference, so the question of abatement has to be on of abatement has to be examined as to whether the limitation for issue