ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

prices that\nare higher than what was agreed with the purchasers. Out of the\nreceipts from the new buyers, the appellant refunded to the purchasers\nthe amount paid by them and a portion of the excess amount received.\n10\nITA Nos.261 & 1022/Mum/2025\nSamir Narain Bhojwani\nThe amount thus refunded to the purchasers represents the\nconsideration the purchasers paid towards

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VOLTAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

pricing adjustment for corporate guarantee fees is no more an issue which is res integra. Adjustment for corporate guarantee fees has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court. We find that the view taken by learned CIT(A) is in consonance with the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kento Cylinders (supra

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL GULABDAS SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5134/Mum/2017 & Co. No. 319/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit – 24(1) Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah, Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, B-1601, Titanium Towers बनाम/ 16Th Floor, Jai View Chsl Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Sahakar Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmfps-8959-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)/Respondent (""थ" / Respondent)/Appellant : Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil G. Shah – Assessee-In-Person सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-36/It-217/Acit-24(1)/15-16 Dated 26/05/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

54E. 54EA. 54EB. 54F , 54G and 54H. be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset, being a transfer

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

transfer of a long term capital asset is invested or deposited (whole or any part of the net consideration) in the specified assets, the assessee shall not be charged to capital gains. Therefore, the exemption under section 54E of the I.T.Act cannot be denied to the assessee on account of the fiction created in section 50.” 2.9. The coordinate Bench

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

54E. There is nothing to indicate that investment is restricted to any of the specified assets. Had the Legislature intended to restrict investment in any one of the specified assets, it would have used the words ‘in any one of the specified assets’ instead of ‘in any specified asset’. This clearly shows that the word ‘any’ has been used where

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

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 out of the capital gains arising from a transfer of long-term asset. Even if we 7 Shri Mehul J Dhabalia Shri Jagdish C Dhabalia agree

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

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 out of the capital gains arising from a transfer of long-term asset. Even if we 7 Shri Mehul J Dhabalia Shri Jagdish C Dhabalia agree

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, **appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar**

54E does not make any distinction between depreciable asset and nondepreciable asset. A perusal of the provisions of section 50C, which has been reproduced hereinabove, also shows that there is no such distinction made between a depreciable asset and a non-depreciable asset and it, therefore, cannot be said that the said provision is not*  *applicable in a case

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

54E, cannot be brought to tax as part of the book profit under the Explanation to section 11 5J...........................” 17. From the above discussion we are of the opinion that surplus resulting in the books of the assessee company consequent upon waiver of loan amount is not required to be credited to the profit & loss account for the year

ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

54E, cannot be brought to tax as part of the book profit under the Explanation to section 11 5J...........................” 17. From the above discussion we are of the opinion that surplus resulting in the books of the assessee company consequent upon waiver of loan amount is not required to be credited to the profit & loss account for the year

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S.

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

ANJALI PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

54E against purchase of flat - Held, yes” In the case of Jamnadevi Agrawal (supra) the coordinate bench has held as under: “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit - Assessment year 2001-02 - Fact that assessees in group had purchased and sold shares of similar companies through same broker could not be a ground to hold that transactions

ACIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LTD ( MERGED ENTITY HDFC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

54E does not make any distinction between depreciable assets and non-depreciable assets. Benefit of section is available to the assessee irrespective of the fact that computation of capital gains is done either u/s.48 and 49 or u/s.50. Legal fiction created by the statute is to deem capital gain as short-term capital gain and not to deem the asset

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

54E does not make any distinction between depreciable assets and non-depreciable assets. Benefit of section is available to the assessee irrespective of the fact that computation of capital gains is done either u/s.48 and 49 or u/s.50. Legal fiction created by the statute is to deem capital gain as short-term capital gain and not to deem the asset

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(2), ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

54E does not make any distinction between depreciable asset and non-\ndepreciable asset. A perusal of the provisions of section 50C, which has\nbeen reproduced hereinabove, also shows that there is no such\ndistinction made between a depreciable asset and a non-depreciable\nasset and it, therefore, cannot be said that the said provision is not\napplicable in a case

HDFC BANK LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 36(1)(viii) speaks only of special reserve created under that section without making any distinction between reserve created before the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, in the said section effective from 01.04.1998 and reserve created post amendment. By referring to section 41(4A) according to which, withdrawal from the special reserve created and maintained