“Section 94(7)”

Kala Ramesh Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekala Ramesh Parmar Ito Ward – 23(2)(6), 2/21,Kishorebuilding, Room No.303, बनाम/ Opp Edward Cinema, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 521, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400002. Mumbai- 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpp6229M (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

dividend received. It was further stated that in case of capital loss whether the loss was adjusted after dividends in terms of section 94(7) of the Act. In his response, Petitioner informed the Assessing Officer on 19-3-2015 itself that there was no increase in the security premium ... said year by the Petitioner. It had not received any dividend income during the said year too. Hence, question of applicability of section 94(7) did not arise. Petitioner did not make any investment nor was there any inventory of shares; no dividend was earned during the year. Alongwith

M/S Wf Asian Smaller Companies Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

supporting documents. Question no. 28. Details of loss arising out on account of purchase and sale of securities or units (referred to in sections 94(7) & 94(8) of the Act.) Question no. 30. Details of all Capital Gains (short term & long term separately) as per Table below: Date ... point 13 above. 19. Point no. 28: Loss arising on account of purchase and sale of securities or unit referred to in section 94(7) and 94(8) of the Act. 20. Point No. 30: Details of capital gains. Details of short term and long term capital gains and losses

M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd V. Acit-2(3) Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- 2(3) V. M/S. Zensor Technologies Ltd Room No. 555, Aayakar Bhavan Magnet House, 2Nd Floor Mumbai Narottam Morarjee Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 Pan: Aaacf0742K (Appellant) (Respondent)

resulted in double taxation. 3) The CIT(A) ought to have held that since no dividend income has been received. the provision of Section 94(7) are not applicable and the short term capital loss of Rs. 8,56,000 arising on sale of units of Mutual Fund

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

confirming the Assessing Officer‟s action of not allowing carry forward of loss of Rs. 4,02,591/- by invoking the provisions of Section 94(7). 2. The Appellant prays that its claim for carry forward of loss of Rs.4,02,591/- be allowed. VI. 1. The CIT(A) erred ... five) of the appeal relate to not allowing carryforward of loss of Rs. 04, 02, 591 by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 26.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that in the return of income assessee claimed short-term capital loss

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

confirming the Assessing Officer‟s action of not allowing carry forward of loss of Rs. 4,02,591/- by invoking the provisions of Section 94(7). 2. The Appellant prays that its claim for carry forward of loss of Rs.4,02,591/- be allowed. VI. 1. The CIT(A) erred ... five) of the appeal relate to not allowing carryforward of loss of Rs. 04, 02, 591 by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 26.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that in the return of income assessee claimed short-term capital loss

ACIT CC-43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

confirming the Assessing Officer‟s action of not allowing carry forward of loss of Rs. 4,02,591/- by invoking the provisions of Section 94(7). 2. The Appellant prays that its claim for carry forward of loss of Rs.4,02,591/- be allowed. VI. 1. The CIT(A) erred ... five) of the appeal relate to not allowing carryforward of loss of Rs. 04, 02, 591 by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 26.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that in the return of income assessee claimed short-term capital loss

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

confirming the Assessing Officer‟s action of not allowing carry forward of loss of Rs. 4,02,591/- by invoking the provisions of Section 94(7). 2. The Appellant prays that its claim for carry forward of loss of Rs.4,02,591/- be allowed. VI. 1. The CIT(A) erred ... five) of the appeal relate to not allowing carryforward of loss of Rs. 04, 02, 591 by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 26.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that in the return of income assessee claimed short-term capital loss

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

confirming the Assessing Officer‟s action of not allowing carry forward of loss of Rs. 4,02,591/- by invoking the provisions of Section 94(7). 2. The Appellant prays that its claim for carry forward of loss of Rs.4,02,591/- be allowed. VI. 1. The CIT(A) erred ... five) of the appeal relate to not allowing carryforward of loss of Rs. 04, 02, 591 by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 26.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that in the return of income assessee claimed short-term capital loss

Roha Dyechem Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Central Circle 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

confirming the Assessing Officer‟s action of not allowing carry forward of loss of Rs. 4,02,591/- by invoking the provisions of Section 94(7). 2. The Appellant prays that its claim for carry forward of loss of Rs.4,02,591/- be allowed. VI. 1. The CIT(A) erred ... five) of the appeal relate to not allowing carryforward of loss of Rs. 04, 02, 591 by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 26.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that in the return of income assessee claimed short-term capital loss

Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 43, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

confirming the Assessing Officer‟s action of not allowing carry forward of loss of Rs. 4,02,591/- by invoking the provisions of Section 94(7). 2. The Appellant prays that its claim for carry forward of loss of Rs.4,02,591/- be allowed. VI. 1. The CIT(A) erred ... five) of the appeal relate to not allowing carryforward of loss of Rs. 04, 02, 591 by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 26.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that in the return of income assessee claimed short-term capital loss

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

confirming the Assessing Officer‟s action of not allowing carry forward of loss of Rs. 4,02,591/- by invoking the provisions of Section 94(7). 2. The Appellant prays that its claim for carry forward of loss of Rs.4,02,591/- be allowed. VI. 1. The CIT(A) erred ... five) of the appeal relate to not allowing carryforward of loss of Rs. 04, 02, 591 by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. 26.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that in the return of income assessee claimed short-term capital loss

Kamal Jajoo, Worli vs. ACIT 21(2), Piramal Chambers

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

return of income by treating the same as business income. AO also made addition of Rs.32,000/- being dividend stripping under section 94(7) of the Act and thereby framed the assessment at the total income of Rs.22,03,350/- and agricultural income at Rs.3,87,460/- under section

Pranay Godha, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 5(2), Mumbai

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

Short-Term Capital Loss of Rs.3,09,71,101/- u/s 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the provision of section 94(7) applied to the case?". TOTAL TAX EFFECT 4,27,47,115/- 20. This is an appeal filed by revenue against the order

Mr. Manoharlal Tandon, Mumbai vs. ACIT_9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Manoharlal Tandon Vs. Acit – 9(1)(1) Plot No.35 (Pr), C-2, Aayakar Bhavan, Tandon Beach House, M.K.Road, Azad Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 Pan/Gir No. : Aaapt2929F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr. K Shivram.Ar Respondent By : Mr.T. Shankar.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Thane Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM (Hearing