Hami Aspi Balsara v. ACIT

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)

…deep Dave (2019 109 taxmann.com 138 (Raipur-Trb),  Vodafone International Holding Limited Vs Union of India (341 ITR 1 SC),  Govindlal Mandhana Vs Add CIT in ITA No(s)3881, 3877, 3095, 3906/ Mum/2010 dated 15.02.2012,  Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT (2010) 126 ITD 100 (Mum) 11 Ravi shroff (AY 2015-16) 8. On the other hand, the ld CIT–DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the stand of the assessee that he was not associated with the business of HCL, are new facts, such facts were not brought to the notice of AO or ld. CIT(A). If it was share tr…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-41(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-41(2)(1), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, 111, Marathon Max Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mulund Goregoan Link Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

…Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, held held as as under"Admittedl under"Admittedly, y, in in the the share share purchase purchase agreement no consideration was assigned towards non agreement no consideration was assigned towards non agreement no consideration was assigne…

ACIT 26 (3), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-26(3), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, R. No. 332, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya 1204, Park Royale, Madan Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mohan Malviye Road, Bandra East, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Nilu Jaggi, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

…dictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in 12. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACI the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, held as T 126 ITD 100, held as under "Admittedly, in the share purchase agreement no "Admittedly, in the share purchase agreement no "Admittedly, in the share purchase agreement no consideration was assigned towards non consideration was assigned towards non-compete fees and compete fees and the parties had entered into the share purchase agreem…

PRANAY GODHA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result we are in agreement with a finding of Ld

…900/Mum/2010 ix) Rohitasava Chand Vs. CIT 306 ITR 242 (Del.) x) CIT Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar 279 ITR 573 (Cal.) xi) CIT Vs. Shiv Raj Gupta 372 ITR 337 (Del.) 13. The jurisdictional ITAT in the case of similar facts, held in the case of Hami Aspi Balsara Vs ACIT 126 ITD 100, held as under “Admittedly, in the share purchase agreement no consideration was assigned towards non-compete fees and the parties had entered into the share purchase agreement after mutually settling the price of shares. This clause clearly shows that in the purchase price of shares, consideration towards Restraint Clause was embedded. Admittedl…

HITESH CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

…siness or profession, which is chargeable under the head ‘Capital gains’.” 5.33. It is noted that similar issue has come up in other cases decided by higher judicial authorities. The appellant has laid strong emphasis on the case of Hami Aspi Balsara v. ACIT (126 ITD 100) of the ITAT Mumbai Bench. In this case, in the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the purchase price of shares of the target companies was much higher than the book value of shares of the three companies. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain as to why the difference between the book value and the purchase pr…

NITAN CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…is squarely covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the tribunal in the cases of Asst. CIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana (in ITA No. 3990/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dated 07.10.2011 and others) and Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara vs. Asst. CIT [2010] 126 ITD 100 (Mum), wherein a similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by holding that even if there is a clause in the consent terms to the effect that the assessee shall not carry on business for certain number of years, that cannot be construed to mean that the consideration received for sale of shares, is also partly towards non- compete f…

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

…is squarely covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the tribunal in the cases of Asst. CIT vs. Savita N. Mandhana (in ITA No. 3990/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dated 07.10.2011 and others) and Mrs. Hami Aspi Balsara vs. Asst. CIT [2010] 126 ITD 100 (Mum), wherein in similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by holding that even if there is a clause in the consent terms to the effect that the assessee shall not carry on business for certain number of years, that cannot be construed to mean that the consideration received for sale of shares, is also partly towards non- compete…

SIDDHARTH DEEPAK DANDEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-2013

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Madhav Dandekar Asst. Commissioner Of Income (Huf) B-4, Asavari, 241, Tax -21(1), Piramal Chamber, Vs. Veer Savarkar Road, Lalbaug, Parel Mahim, Mumbai-400016. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaahd1746G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Siddharth Deepak Income Tax Officer-21(3)(3), Dandekar B-4, Asavari, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. 241, Veer Savarkar Road, Parel Mahim, Mumbai-400016. Mumbai. Pan No. Agdpd4532F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh S. Athavale, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhydhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018

…Reserve Bank of India. Also another P/B was filed containing the decision in (i) ACIT v. Shri Sanjay Umesh Vyas (ITA No. 3963/Mum/2011), (ii) Hulas Rahul Gupta v. CIT (2012) 24 taxmann.com 191 (Delhi), (iii) Hami Balsara v. Deepak Madhav Dandekar ACIT [2010] 126 ITD 100 (Mum), (iv) ACIT v. Savita Mandhana (ITA No. 3900/M/2010) (ITAT-Mum), (v) CIT v. Govindlal C. Mandhana HUF (ITA No. 1221-1222 of 2012) (HC-Bom) and (vi) Priya Desh Gupta v. DCIT (2016) 70 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi). 5.1 The Ld. counsel makes a specific reference to the JVA dated 30.05.2011. Reliance is placed by him on the order of the ITAT ‘A’ Benc…

DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. VRUSHAL TRAIDNG P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5356/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-10) बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner Of Income M/S Vrushal Trading Pvt.Ltd., A Wing, 607, Tax-8(3), Vs. 215, Atrium, Chakala, Room No.217, Andheri-Kurla Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400069 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…sence of the assessee. 2 4. We heard the ld. DR and perused the record. We notice that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Hami Aspi Balsara V/s ACIT reported in 126 ITD 100. At the time of hearing, the ld.DR submitted that the Hyderabad Special Bench of the Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of ACIT V/s Dr. B V Raju (2012) 135 ITD 1 (SB), wherein it has been held that non-compete fee would be chargeable to tax as income from business in the hands of the persons associated with the transferor also…