“Section 97(4)”

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. SANJULA SUMATI KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands\ndismissed

nmention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief\nto the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate\nprovisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the\ntransaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee\nand exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction\nundertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the\nprovisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee.\nAdmittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial\nfund based on the public notice declared

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. KANTA GANPATLAL KOTHARI , MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. LALITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ANITA KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

mention name of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) also granted relief to the assessee by observing that assessee did not violate provisions of section 97(4) of the act, and therefore the transaction of the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee and exemption of dividend under section ... that as it may, it is noted that, the transaction undertaken by the assessee cannot be found fault with as the provisions of section 97 (4) is also not flouted by the assessee. Admittedly assessee is an investor who invested in JM Financial fund based on the public notice declared

ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE 8(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SUBHKAM VENTURES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

cannot be termed as tax evasion schemes only due to the fact that the assessee derived benefit by complying to the provisions of Section 97(4) of the Act. Therefore the issue for our consideration is whether the impugned transaction being receipt of dividend and STCL are non-genuine

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SUBHKAM VENTURES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

cannot be termed as tax evasion schemes only due to the fact that the assessee derived benefit by complying to the provisions of Section 97(4) of the Act. Therefore the issue for our consideration is whether the impugned transaction being receipt of dividend and STCL are non-genuine

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SUBHKAM VENTURES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

cannot be termed as tax evasion schemes only due to the fact that the assessee derived benefit by complying to the provisions of Section 97(4) of the Act. Therefore the issue for our consideration is whether the impugned transaction being receipt of dividend and STCL are non-genuine