ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

price at which the shares are sold and not the fair market value of the asset as on the date of sale would be considered as the real income of the assessee. In the instant case, there is no understatement of income by the assessee, given the fact that ne consideration has been received. by it in respect of demerger

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price, made a reference to the DVO under Section 142A. The DVO estimated the market value of the property at an amount which was much higher than the amount shown in the document. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the two figures as undisclosed investment. It was in this background that this Court held that the report

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price, made a reference to the DVO under Section 142A. The DVO estimated the market value of the property at an amount which was much higher than the amount shown in the document. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the two figures as undisclosed investment. It was in this background that this Court held that the report

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

price, made a reference to the DVO under Section 142A. The DVO estimated the market value of the property at an amount which was much higher than the amount shown in the document. The Assessing Officer added the difference between the two figures as undisclosed investment. It was in this background that this Court held that the report

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

55A deals with the income chargeable under the head “Capital gains”. Section 45 is charging section for capital gains in general cases. Sub-section (1) of section 45 provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in certain sections allowing exemptions, be chargeable

D.C.I.T. CIR. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PENINSULA LAND LTD., MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3440/Mum/2009 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S Peninsula Land Limited Dcit – 7(1), (Previously Known As Morarjee Realties Ltd.) 622, Aaykar Bhavan Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor बिाम M. K. Marg Mathuradas Mills Compound, Mumbai – 400 020 / Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5173-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 3696/Mum/2009 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Dcit – 7(1), M/S Peninsula Land Limited 622, Aaykar Bhavan (Previously Known As Morarjee Realties Ltd.) Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor बिाम/ M. K. Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Mathuradas Mills Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5173-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri H. N. Singh – Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / : 05/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

transfer in view of the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act for the revenue recognition based on the percentage completion method. Moreover it was not fair on the part of the AO to adopt the construction cost of project at Panvel (Mansarovar Kamothe Builders & Developers Welfare Association) for estimating the construction cost of the appellant's project situated

ADDL.C.I.T. RG. 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PENINSULA LAND LTD., MUMBAI

Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry. In view of the above and particularly in view of clear provisions of law as existing during

DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PENINSULA LAND LTD, MUMBAI

Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry. In view of the above and particularly in view of clear provisions of law as existing during

MADHU SARDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

transfer of capital asset by and assessee the consideration received or accruing is not ascertainable or cannot be determined. Under section 50C, there is special provision for substitution of full value of consideration in cases where Stamp Authorities adopts a particular value, i.e. deemed to be the full value of consideration received or accruing. Reference to Valuation Officer under section

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

55A of the Act for making investigation under section 131(1)(d). Since the Assessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs. 1,43,094 based on the DVO’s report, which, in view of the above decision could not be relied upon, we hold that there is no material on record to sustain the addition made

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar- A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2014-15 - A.Y. 2016-17

55A of the Act for making investigation under section 131(1)(d). Since the Assessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs. 1,43,094 based on the DVO’s report, which, in view of the above decision could not be relied upon, we hold that there is no material on record to sustain the addition made

INDUSIND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD ( NOW SUCCEEDED ON AMALGAMATION BY HINDUJA GROUP LTD ),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

price of Rs.3.76 Cr. i.e. Rs.11,760/- per sq. ft.\n\n4.2 The ld.CIT(A) further noted that section 50C is a deeming\nprovision of the Act which has been introduced by Finance Act of 2002\nand its introduction was explained as under:\n\n37. Computation of capital gains in real estate transactions-37.1 The\nFinance

HIRANANDANI INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Hiranandani Industrial Enterprises, The Assistant Commissioner Of 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, F P J Vs. Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Room No. 117, Aayakar Bhavan, 400021 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaafh1372E Appellant Respondent

prices. I find that in paragraph 9 of letter dated 27.10.2014 the assessee had made the submissions as an alternative claim. This was to be considered by the Assessing officer. This procedural lacunae needs to be cleared. Accordingly Assessing Officer is directed to make a reference to Valuation Officer in accordance with provisions of section 50C(2) and adopt figure

MR. HIRJIPARBAT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

55A of the Act for making investigation under section 131(1)(d). Since the\nAssessing Officer merely made the above addition of Rs.1,43,094 based on the DVO's\nreport, which, in view of the above decision could not be relied upon, we hold that there\nis no material on record to sustain the addition made by the Assessing

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

section, Assessing Officer has no power to bifurcate on \npro-rata basis and deduct a part of it from the gross dividend income. \nThere is no scope for any estimation of expenditure and hence no scope \n54 \nHDFC Bank Ltd. \nITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. \nAYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 \nfor allocation of notional expenditure. The deductions contemplated are \nthe

M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C(1) of the Act, is not correct as our client has not sold the property below the valuation by done by the stamp valuation authority. 2. The value as determined by the District Valuation Officer is at Rs. 71,16,92,000/- which is excessive and unreasonable considering the fact that the property is still under litigation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GOLDEN FALCON PACIFIC LTD., NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C(1) of the Act, is not correct as our client has not sold the property below the valuation by done by the stamp valuation authority. 2. The value as determined by the District Valuation Officer is at Rs. 71,16,92,000/- which is excessive and unreasonable considering the fact that the property is still under litigation

TECKMEN SYSTEMS ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the above terms

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 50C of the I. T. Act, 1961, even though the property transferred by the appellant was a leasehold property and Sec. 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961, has no application in case of transfer of leasehold property. 4. Learned lower authorities have grossly erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court / Hon'ble Income