ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL DILIP SANKHE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

price charged for transfer of equity shares with necessary evidence, which represents intrinsic value of shares. Ld. DR further submitted that assuming for a moment but not accepting that transfer of equity shares falls under the head ‘capital gains’ but the investment made in purchase of residential house is clearly outside the provisions of Section 54F

DEEPA PAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 20(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ms. Deepa Pamnani Vs. The Income Tax Officer Pamnanai Hospital & Ward 20(1)(1) Research Center Piramal Chamber 33 Cf +6Qc , Railway Station Lal Baug Road, Prem Colony, Mandasur Mumbai 400012 Madhya Pradesh 458001 Pan Cstpp4472L (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Ca & Mr. Kapil Jain Ca Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am:

transferred. According to him the amount of Rs. Page 5 of 18 29,432,755/– upon sale of shares derived is questionable and not supported by any evidence as to how the value has been derived at. Therefore, according to him the long-term capital gain claimed by the assessee is wrong and therefore deduction under section 54F is also

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

ANANT R GAWANDE,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and AO is directed to give consequential relief

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

transfer of original asset and hence denying claim u/s 54F proviso (a) (ii). Without prejudice, the Ld.AR 6 ITA 5453/Mum/2019-AY-2013-14 submitted that the learned AO has erred in not accepting that, flat purchased by the assessee jointly with his wife cannot be considered as exclusive property for the purpose of section 54F as laid down by ITAT Mumbai

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

54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as made by the Assessing Officer? (B) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and facts in holding that the assessee should be given deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 7. We have considered the facts and taken note of the rival submissions. To complete the narration

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as made by the Assessing Officer? (B) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and facts in holding that the assessee should be given deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 7. We have considered the facts and taken note of the rival submissions. To complete the narration

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

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as made by the Assessing Officer? (B) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law and facts in holding that the assessee should be given deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 7. We have considered the facts and taken note of the rival submissions. To complete the narration

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 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilized by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return. It was submitted that such deposit being made in any case not later than

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

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: -

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 by way of compulsory acquisition

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