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

transfer of residential house owned by the appellant. The purpose of the section is to grant exemption in case the appellant acquires a new residential house by investing the capital gain as an owner. The words used in Section 54 are "purchase" or "construction" of a new residential house. The requirement of section is not that appellant may acquire

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE-32(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed in terms indicated above

section 54F was claimed in respect of\ninvestment in a new residential house property, being Flat No.\n1001, Estonia B, Kandivali, Mumbai, purchased from M/s.\nHiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vide registered\nagreement for sale dated 29.03.2011, and that the claim was\nrestricted to the extent of capital gains. It was emphasised\nthat the authorities below proceeded solely on the date

SONIA PATHAK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Sonia Pathak Khanna, Ward 25(1)(2) Flat No.14, 5Th Floor, Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor, Kodinar, Model Town, Off Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- J.P. Road, Four Bungalows, 43 Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 G Block, Bandra Kurla 053 Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp6359C Assessee By : Shri K Gopal, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024

transfer of long term capital asset. 016. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned lower authorities. He submitted that if the assessee has earned short term capital gain on sale of property which is chargeable to tax as short term capital gain under Section 50 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JAY BHARAT MEHTA, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

price of INR.745 per share in an off market deal undertaken in terms of SPA. The aforesaid transfer of shares was made after complying with the provisions of the Takeover Code. It was further stated that Tau Investment was a step-down subsidiary of KKR Asia III Fund Investments Pte Ltd [referred to as PAC 2 in Letter of Offer

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

section 54 of the act and disallowed the exemption to the\nassessee.\nb. On an enquiry u/s. 133(6) of \"the act\", the vendors of the\nproperty Mr. Manish Udhavdas Rupchandani and Mr. Vicky\nUdhavdas Rupchandani disclosed that \"the deal is in dispute and\nincomplete for want of transfer permission from Ambey Valley.\nTherefore they have not offered to income

RAVI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

In the result, all remaining ground are allowed with the aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

price paid for management control. 1.4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO that the transfer of shares to NNCL pursuant to a SPA is a transfer of business and the provisions of section 28(va) were applicable to the aforesaid transfer

MRS. CHANDA RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

price of residential house at Runwal Greens numbered as T-6/1502, as exempt under the provisions of section 54F of the Act. 4. Though the Assessing Officer (AO) allowed the exemption claimed by the Assessee to the tune of Rs.3,30,86,397/- u/s 54 of the Act for the purchase of residential house property numbered as T-6

VANRAJ RANCHHODDAS MERCHANT (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR HARSHIT MERCHANT),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

54F in accordance with\nlaw.\n12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal\nbefore us raising following grounds of appeal:\n1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) – NFAC erred in\nconfirming the action of the Assessing Officer of reopening of\nassessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That the\nreopening of the assessment

PRAVIN GAMBHIRCHAND SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 26(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

price of Rs. 80,42,625/- herein after referred as 3BHK flat, vide agreement dated 05.07.2013 in a proposed building yet to be constructed. The Pravin Gambhirchand Shah (HUF) purchase of aforesaid second flat within a period of two years from the date of transfer of original asset, led the assessing officer to trigger section 54F

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

price of Rs.1.9 crores, on behalf of his mother to M/s Vardhan Builders by a single cheque dated 14.02.2014 for purchase of flat by her. The 15 Farooq Abdulla Merchant appellant held the Power of Attorney from his mother to act on her behalf. No expense has been claimed by his mother in respect of the renovation expense

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NARENDRA GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act." tax Act." 5.8 In the rejoinder, the Ld. DR submitted a note prepared by the In the rejoinder, the Ld. DR submitted a note prepared by the In the rejoinder, the Ld. DR submitted a note prepared by the Assessing Officer while filing scrutiny report to the Commissioner of Assessing Officer

GOBINDRAM JAGDISH KAKWANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Blegobindram Jagdish Kakwani Vs. Ito (It)- Ward 3(1)(1) C/O Gulabani & Co. Ca, Air India Building 507, 5Th Floor, Shree Prasad House Nariman Point 35Th Road, Off Linking Road Mumbai-400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 Pan: Awopk5474C (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer. The limit of 5% has been increased to 10% by the Finance Act 2020 wef 14 2021 A question arises as to whether the tolerance limit is prospective from the date of its introduction or is retrospective? if it in retrospective, it is retrospective since when? Amendment made in scheme of section 50C(1), by inserting third proviso thereto

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. HARSH SANDEEP THAKORE , MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Renu Jauhri, Am Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Harsh Sandeep Thakore 4Th Floor, Harvansh, N. S. Road, 8, 502, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle, West, Mumbai – 400049. Pan/Gir No. Aaapt4930A (Appellant) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 81/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1703/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Harsh Sandeep Thakore 4Th Floor, Harvansh, N. S. Road, 8, 502, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle, West, Mumbai – 400049. Pan/Gir No. Aaapt4930A (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri. Reepal Tralshawala Assessee By Respondent By : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

Section 54F of the Act states that the assessee should have made the investment one year prior or two years after the date of transfer or construction of the residential house within 3 years from the transfer of the capital asset for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, thereby making a disallowance on the same

DEEPANKAR MOGHA,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(1) , MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (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 assessee has to buy a property as an owner In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Hameed Jaffery

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

price and terms of payment with the developer. Merely different nomenclature used in the Letter dated 14-02-2011 would not e the substance of the transaction. The essence of the LOI Braj Kishore Singh depends on the intention of the parties to the LOI and the substance of the LOI depends on the acts performed by the parties subsequent

PADMAJA RAJESH HARVE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethpadmaja Rajesh Harve Vs. Acit-41(1)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilyabhavan, 1201-A, 64 Greens Building, Tagore Road, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandrakurla Santacruz West, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No:Aaxph1769E (Appellant) (Respondent)

54F of the Act were rightly denied by the lower authorities. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The appellant was one of the two shareholders of Harve Tube Tekniqs Pvt. Ltd., which was incorporated on 20.05.2004. The appellant was holding 5000 shares worth Rs.50,000/-. The company was converted

RAVI JAKHAR,MUMBAI vs. ASS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 35(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

54F of the Act. 4.1. Insofar as the deposit of cash is concerned, it is the say of the ld. Counsel that the returned income of the assessee is more than Rs.50 Lakhs and the sale consideration of shares is more than Rs.2 Crores and, therefore, the cash deposit of Rs.3,08,600/- should not be questioned. I.T.A. No. 3299/Mum/2024

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

price and terms of\npayment with the developer. Merely different nomenclature used in the Letter\ndated 14-02-2011 would not e the substance of the transaction. The essence of the\nLOI depends on the intention of the parties to the LOI and the substance of the\nLOI depends on the acts performed by the parties subsequent to the contract