MR. BIPINCHANDRA SHANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23 (1) (6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act, in the present case it needs to be examined whether, pursuant to the Deed for Conversion dated 05/12/2019 entered into between the landlord, i.e. Tarabhai Bhatia Family Trust, and the assessee as a tenant, the assessee received an immovable property or merely a right (i.e. the ownership right) in the immovable property

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROMELL HOUSING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the\nRevenue's Appeal is dismissed

56(2)(x) of the Act for\ndetermination of income of the assessee.\n10. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Raj Singh (D)\nTh.Lrs. vs. Gejo (D) Th.Lrs.&Ors.,in Civil Appeal No.9098 of 2013, vide\njudgment dated 02.01.2024, while examining the provisions of section 47 of\nthe Registration Act, 1908, which provides that a registered

BENUDHAR GOKULANAND BISWAL,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMET CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebenudhar Gokulanand Vs. National E Assessment Biswal, Centre, H 302, Room.No 401,2 Nd Shanti Complex, Floor, E Ramp, Saki Vihar Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Powai, Stadium, Mumbai – 400072, New Delhi-110003. Pan/Gir No. : Adopb9106B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Tanmay Phadke.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per The Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)]Despite Concluding That The Agreement For Sale Was Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. Entered Into On 13.07.2009 (I.E. Prior To 01.04.2017), Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Which Was Inserted Vide Finance Act, 2017 & Made Expressly Applicable From 01.04.2017 Are Not Applicable To The Facts Under Consideration. The Addition Of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% Of Rs. 19,76,686/-) As Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Is Bad In Law & May Be Deleted.

price of Rs.32,97,500/- and got registered in the year 2017 at market value of Rs. 52,74,186/- and the stamp valuation and registration fee of Rs. Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. 2,94,000/- was paid. Further the AO has observed that the assessee has not furnished bank account details including the foreign bank account highlighting the payments

VIVIRA INVESTMENT AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -4, THANE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

section 56(2)(x) of INR 3,36,27,20,872/- be deleted, and the returned loss of INR 43,99,76,081/- be accepted. 12. The Appellant prays that the addition made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(x) of Rs. 3,36,27,20,872/- may be deleted and the returned loss

AXIA INFOSERVE LLP,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleaxia Infoserve Llp V. Additional/Joint/Dy/Acit 16Th Floor, Tower 2A National E-Assessment Centre One Indiabulls Centre Delhi Senapati Bapat Road, Elphinstone Road Mumbai- 400013 Pan: Abifa7158G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Minal Kamble

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Act, inter alia, provides that where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after 1st April, 2017, any immovable property, for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp

SMT. PINKI CHETAN SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

price and circle rate would be determined to be the income of purchaser and taxed under head income from other sources. There is a deeming provision in the Income-tax Act under Section 56 (2)(x), which states that if the market value of a property is lower than the circle rate, then the difference is taxed as other income

MEENA ARJUN NARANG,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

price. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are extracted as under: “5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that assessee had purchased flat no. 204, B-Wing, "Insignia" building situated at Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai for a consideration of Rs. 1,79,94,452/-. However, the value

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. SAMAGRA WEALTHMAX PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

transfer chargeable to tax. Further, the amount of Rs.149.29 crores is chargeable to tax u/s. 56(2)(x) of the Act. It was submitted that the learned CIT(A) did not consider the above provisions correctly and, therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable. x. He further submitted that the assessee has benefited by generation

ANIL PANNALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

price of flat and stamp duty value was added by the AO which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A), the operative portion is contained in para 7 and 8 and the same is reproduced herein below: After careful consideration of the submissions made by the assessee, the assessment order, and the case laws cited, I find that the appeal

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

price gone by that time, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of section 43CA of nd (4) of section 43CA of the Act, no addition is called for since a part of the consideration has been received the Act, no addition is called for since

BAJAJ INTERNATIONAL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 1(2)1, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for In the result both the appeals of the parties are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

price gone by that time, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of section 43CA of nd (4) of section 43CA of the Act, no addition is called for since a part of the consideration has been received the Act, no addition is called for since

MR. RAKESH GOVINDCHAND MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

56(1). . . . . (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income- tax under any of the head "Income from other sources", namely- (i) and (ii) ** ** ** (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

ELVIS ZEPHERIN CRASTO ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TAX WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleelvis Zepherin Crasto V. Income Tax Officer Gorai Village, Jui Pada International Taxation Gorai Essel World Road Ward – 2(1)(1) Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091 Room No. 1724, 17Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Asgpc6280N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 56(2)(x) provides that the difference difference in the SDV and the between the SDV and agreement value will be consideration u/s 56(2) as deemed to be income from other sources and "unexplained investment in taxed accordingly. However, the AO has proposed property." to treat the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 without any cogent evidence

INDORAMA VENTURES OXIDES ANKLESHWAR PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.\n16,78,40,626/- on account of purchase of business from HIIPL. The Ld. AR argued\nonnon-applicability of section 56(2)(x

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

price of ₹ 60/- per share. Dish TV India Ltd is also a company forming part of Essel group of companies and it is engaged in the business of providing DTH services. Dish TV India Ltd is a company in which public are substantially interested and its shares are listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

price of ₹ 60/- per share. Dish TV India Ltd is also a company forming part of Essel group of companies and it is engaged in the business of providing DTH services. Dish TV India Ltd is a company in which public are substantially interested and its shares are listed in the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange

TUSHAR RAMNATH SHETTY,ANDHERI EAST vs. THE IMCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-23(3)(1),MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

56(1). . . . . (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income- tax under any of the head "Income from other sources", namely- (i) and (ii) ** ** ** (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after

NEXZONE FISCAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, ACIT, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price has\nbeen taxed u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Relevant provisions of\nsection 56(2)(x) are reproduced below:\n\"56.\n2. In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the\nprovisions of sub-section(1), the following incomes, shall be\ncharegeable to income tax under the head “income from other\nsources”, namely:-\n(x) where