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

DCIT CIRCLE-15 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RANKIN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 15(3)(1) V. M/S. Rankin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 451, 4Th Floor Next To Classic Marble Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Subash Nagar Road, Bhandup (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400078 Pan: Aafcs5275B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department By : Shri T. Shankar

price [Rs 1000 per OFCDs issued OFCDs] 04-04-2011 1,50,000 15,00,00,000 21-07-2011 1,00,000 10,00,00,000 21-03-2012 37,500 3,75,00,000 Total 2,87,500 28,75,00,000 Financial year Amount received (Rs) Upto March

25FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,RANGE -6(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

x) of the Act. 11 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 215. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the receipt of shares of Zee News Ltd. by the appellant at NIL consideration during the year is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the appellant under the provisions of section 56(1) of the Act.” As regards

ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. 25 FPS MEDIA PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

x) of the Act. 11 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 215. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the receipt of shares of Zee News Ltd. by the appellant at NIL consideration during the year is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the appellant under the provisions of section 56(1) of the Act.” As regards

JOSEPH MUDALIAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

price was lower. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs. 150000/ being development charges paid to builders for 4 flats & bank interest of Rs.173308/- paid during construction period while calculating long term capital gain, ignoring the fact that these cost were capitalized in the books, thereby increasing the long term capital gain by Rs.569723/-. 3. The Learned

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

x), the said transaction ought not to be taxed under section 56 of the Act. We may also note that in Explanatory Notes to the provisions of Finance Act 2010 issued by CBDT in its Circular No. 1/2011 dated 06.04.2011, explained the applicability and the intention of the legislation of introducing section 56(2) (viia) as under ; “13.2. These

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

x), the said transaction ought not to be taxed under section 56 of the Act. We may also note that in Explanatory Notes to the provisions of Finance Act 2010 issued by CBDT in its Circular No. 1/2011 dated 06.04.2011, explained the applicability and the intention of the legislation of introducing section 56(2) (viia) as under ; “13.2. These

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.C.I.T. RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

2. 66.00% Edelweiss Capital Ltd. 3. 13.88% IDC India Ltd. 4. 184.91% L&T Capital Co. Ltd. 5. 6.51% SERI Capital Markets Ltd. 6. Sumedha Fiscal Service Ltd. 48.84% 7. (segmental) Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. 209.19% 8. (segmental) 105.10% Arithmetic mean 8. Applying the arithmetic mean of 105.10%, the Transfer Pricing Officer worked out the arm's length price

SHRI VIPUL OTARMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 19.3.1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

transfer of such immovable property: Provided also that where the stamp duty value of immovable property is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 50C, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer, and the provisions of section 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

2. Brief facts are, the assessee an Indian Company is a subsidiary of M/s. Beaumont Development Centre Holding Ltd. and part of the Accenture Group. The assessee is basically providing Software Development Services (SDS), Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) and Consultancy Services (CS) to its group entities worldwide. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return

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