CIT Vs. Mithilesh Kumari (1973) 92 ITR 9 (Del), Addl.CIT v. K.S. Gupta

NARSHI GOPALJI MANGE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

…ri Hariram Hotels Pvt Ltd-229 CTR 455 (Karnataka НС),CIT v. Mithlesh Kumari - 92 ITR 9 (Delhi HC), Addl CIT v. K. S. Gupta - 119 ITR 372 (Andhra Pradesh HC), SAS Hotel Ltd v. ITO-4 ITD 297 (Madras ITAT), S. Balan alias Shanmugam Balkrishnan ChettiaF V. DCIT - 120 ITD 469 (Pune ITAT), Praveen Gupta v. ACIT - 137 TTJ 307 (Delhi ITAT} and Burmah Castrol Plc, In re - 175 Taxman 353 (AAR) He submitted that the copy of the loan and interest certificate from Reliance Capital and ING Vaisya Bank support the proof of payment of interest. 7.2 On the contrary, Ld. DR submitted that it is not known whether the loan taken by…

MR. RAVI BHUSHAN TRIVEDI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC6(4), MUMBAI

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

…ayment of interest thereon to the broker is not disputed by the revenue. We find that reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of co-ordinate bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of S Balan alias Shunmugam vs DCIT reported in 120 ITD 469 wherein it was held as under:- “7. To deal with the first question, it is worth mentioning in the beginning itself that the admitted position is as per the statement made by the ld. A.R. that the burden of interest has never been claimed by the assessee as a revenue expenditure, but it was always being capitalized in the past. The revenue author…

ACIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. FLAMBOYAWER FINANCE P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed and that the CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

…ot advert to any judicial precedence, making down the law in the matter. Two, in all cases of the purchase of shares, viz. CIT vs. Maithreya Pai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Kar.); Shri Mahendra C. Shah vs. Addl. CIT (2011) 140 TTJ 16 (Mum); S. Balan vs. Dy CIT (2009) 120 ITD 469 (Pune), which are relevant for specific purposes, the interest has been allowed as being toward the acquisition of the shares. We have already clarified that the purchase of shares in the present case was, beginning prior to 01.04.1981, completed during the FY 1992-93. The interest cost, which is a time cost, and thus has only nexus with the time…

TEJAS NAGINDAS AMBAVI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CR 21(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negitejas Nagindas Ambavi, फनाभ/ Acit, Circle-21(2), 401, Kelawala Tower, Mumbai. Vs. 28, Swastik Society, N.S. Road No.2, Juhu Scheme, Mumbai-56. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Adzpa0369G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vishwas Mehandale प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 17.10.2014 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-32, Mumbai Dated 14.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. In This Appeal, Assessee Raised Four Grounds In Toto. Ground No.1 Relates To The Granting Of Adequate Opportunity To The Assessee & The Same Is Not Pressed. After Hearing The Ld Dr, The Said Ground No.1 Is Dismissed As Not Pressed. 3. Referring To Grounds No.2 & 3, Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Earned Long Term Capital Gains Amounting To Rs. 7,31,572/- On Sale Of Shares. Assessee Claimed Exemption In Respect Of The Same U/S 10(38) Of The Act. However, Ao Treated Entire Amount As Bogus Capital Gains. No Addition Was Made In Respect Of Original Investment Of The Said Shares. In The Process, Ao Ignored The Documents Such As Contract Notes, Correspondence Of The Broker, Confirmations By The Broker, Payment Transactions Etc. Matter Travelled To The Faa. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, Cit (A) Confirmed The Said Decision Of The Ao. Cit (A) Actually Enhanced The Assessment To The Tune Of Rs. 20,683/-, The Original

…shed letter to the CIT (A) confirming that the barrowed funds were utilised for purchase of flat and the same was also rejected. AO / CIT (A) further rejected the order of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S. Balan Alias Shanmugam vs. DCIT (2009) (120 ITD 469) (Pune) and Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Pratibha Paliwal vs. ACIT (19 taxman.com 355). In our view, these decisions are relevant for the proposition that interest burden of the borrowed fund stands capitalized and therefore, it serve the part of the investment. The written submission of the Ld AR (para 3) are relevant and are applica…

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 18(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘जी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.6692/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11) M/s Arihant Construction, Vs. The ACIT-18(1), Mumbai 2/1-12, Harharwala Building, 347-N.M.Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400011 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAFA 6411 D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri A.V.Sonde याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.Nagendra Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 25/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Da…

J.M. FINANCIAL & INVESTMENT CONSULANCY SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

…11; Bench - "F"; Order dated 3rd April, 2013; b) ITO v. M/s. Global Assets Holding Corporation Ltd. [ITA No.4738/Mum/2010; Bench - "G"; Order dated 27th July, 2011] c) Pratibha Paliwal v. ACIT 11 ITR (Trib) 586 (Del) d) S. Balan alias Shanmugam v/ DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 469 (Pun) e) DCIT v. KRA Holding & Trading (P.) Ltd. 54 SOT 493 (Pun e) - Portfolio management fees paid by the assessee was to be allowed as deduction while computing capital gains arising from sale of shares. f) CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels P. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 (Karn) g) Smt. Neera Jain v. ACIT [ITA No. 18611Muml2009; Decided on 22-2- 2010] 12.…