AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

54B and section 54D also use the word ‘any other land’ and ‘any other land and building’ respectively. The expression ‘any other land’ is an expression of widest amplitude and, therefore, its meaning cannot be restricted to any one piece of land. On the other hand, the Legislature has used the word ‘a’ in sections

ITO 24(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. MOHMMED IQBAL MOHD. AFAQUE KHAN, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) V. Shri Mohammed Iqbal Mohd. Afaque Khan A-602, Plot No. 447 Room No. 611, Piramal Chambers Highland Park Chs Ltd., Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Opp. Morarji Takka, Panvel -410206 Pan: Aacpk7522M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri M.P. Ahuja

transferred is situated in rural area there is no capital gain as the agricultural land in rural area is not treated as capital asset. Since the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions prescribed u/s. 54B of the Act assessee is not eligible to claim any benefit and also assessee has not proved that lands were used for agriculture purpose

ITO 25(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MEHUL J DHABALIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G & 54H. However, section 54EC has not been mentioned despite it is analogous with similar sections like 54E, 54EA & 54EB which had a sunset clause. The exemption from taxability of capital gains as provided in these provisions are in the form of investments made under certain period and under certain conditions

ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAGDISH C. DHABALIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G & 54H. However, section 54EC has not been mentioned despite it is analogous with similar sections like 54E, 54EA & 54EB which had a sunset clause. The exemption from taxability of capital gains as provided in these provisions are in the form of investments made under certain period and under certain conditions

ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MAHESH CONBUILD P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

prices and therefore, invoking the provisions of Section 69B, the differential amount of Rs.98.88 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 22/03/2016 wherein the assessee, inter-alia, contended that merely because the stamp duty value was higher than agreed consideration

ITO 1(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAS PROPBUILD P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

prices and therefore, invoking the provisions of Section 69B, the differential amount of Rs.98.88 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 22/03/2016 wherein the assessee, inter-alia, contended that merely because the stamp duty value was higher than agreed consideration

MOHD RAZA AKBERALI GHUGHARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 Mohd Raza Akberali Ito 15(2)(3), Ghugharia, Matru Mandir Tardeo, बनाम/ M/S. N.S. Virani & Co., C.A. S Mumbai-400034 Vs. 28, Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpg3107B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala. (Ar) Shri K. V. Vispure ( Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 27/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 01/07/2016

54B, 54D and other similar exemption provisions. We have also taken note of various observation of relevant judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Ld. AR which have been discussed in subsequent paragraphs. 2.8. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. ACE Builders P. Ltd. 281 ITR 210 (Bom) vide its order dated 7th March 2005 held

HUNTSMAN INVESTMENTS (NETHERLANDS),MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

price during the year under consideration.\nThe share transfer has already completed during the A.Y. 2021-22 only and as per\nprovision of sub-section 1 of section 45 of the Act, the transfer has been\ncompleted in A.Y. 2021-22 only.\nFurther, the assessee has received the deferred consideration on 18th May, 2021\nwhich is much before the filing

SHAKIL HAMID SHEIKH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6775/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Shakil Hamid Sheikh, Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Survey No. 183, Income Tax – 22(3), V. Kukshet, Mumbai. Opp. Hpcl, Midc, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abqps2677G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

54B of the Act. It was submitted that the land sold was an industrial land and reinvestment in the new land was also into an industrial land and not an agricultural land. Reference was drawn to the sale agreement/purchase agreement which are placed in the paper book filed with the Tribunal. It was also submitted that no consideration has been

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. JASPALSINGH PREHALADSINGH CHANDOK, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2021-22

54B etc., in the Act. Hence, in order to attract the Capital gains tax, there should be (a) a “Capital asset” and (b) a “transfer” of capital asset. The expression “transfer” is defined in sec.2(47) of the Act. However, sec.47 of the Act lists out certain transactions, which are not regarded as “transfer”, meaning thereby, those transactions

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

transfer of documents) to the Assessing Officer of the other person. It was argued by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and other person is one and same, then, why the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of other person should not be treated as a satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

transfer of documents) to the Assessing Officer of the other person. It was argued by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and other person is one and same, then, why the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of other person should not be treated as a satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

transfer of documents) to the Assessing Officer of the other person. It was argued by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and other person is one and same, then, why the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of other person should not be treated as a satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer