“long term capital gain”

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Renu Prakash Bijlani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2011-12 is dismissed and the appeal filed for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

decision rendered in both the years by Ld CIT(A) in allowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gains earned on sale of shares and also in deleting the additions relating to expenses. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed ... year, they were sold through the share broker in the Bombay stock exchange in November, 2010 in five installments. The assessee earned long term capital gains of Rs.55.53 lakhs and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The return of income filed by the assessee

Income Tax Officer-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sohni Depak Tanna, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned assessing officer and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm C.O.No. 135/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Sohni Dipak Tanna Ito 1(1)(1), Mumbai 2Nd Floor, Tanna House, 11A, 534, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nathlal Parekh Marg, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acept3611J Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal & Pankaj Jain Revenue By : Shri. Kishor Dhule Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

case and in law, the learned CIT (appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO of the assessee’s claim of long-term capital gain of ₹ 124,648,690/– overlooking the fact that the entire transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough ... back are unaccounted income in the form of fictitious long-term capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10 (38) of the income tax act 3. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (appeals) A.Y. 2014-15 Sohni Dipak Tanna erred

Ranjita Rangnath Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO, 29(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

aside. 3. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.14,87,298/- made by Id AO by holding that long term capital gain of the said amount arose in the hands of the appellant, on sale of share in agricultural land bearing Gat no. 319 at Mauje ... erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,87,298/- made by Id AO by holding that long term capital gain of the said amount arose in the hands of the appellant, on sale of share in agricultural land bearing Gat no. 319 at Mauje Tekali-Aawas, Tal. Alibag, Dist. Raigad

Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhchetas Karmshi Nandu Vs. Ito 22(1)(3) B/304, Jay Apartment, Room No. 314, 3 Rd Floor, Nehru Road, Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aijpn0030C Appellant .. Respondent

Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of not granting the exemption of long terms capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act on sale of listed equity shares sold through recognized stock exchange which has duly been subjected to security transaction ... Lease Finance and investment (India) Ltd. Further, the said 4950 shares were sold by the assessee during year under consideration. The assessee earned long term capital gain on the sale of share and claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer stated that the assessee

Shekhar Gajanan Govekar (Representative of Late Gajanan Mahabaleshwar Govekar), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshekhar Gajanan Vs. Ito, Ward 42(2)(2), Govekar (Representative Kautilya Bhawan, Of Late Gajanan Bkc, Bandra, Mahabaleshwar Govekar) Mumbai-400051. 308, C-Wing, Viman Darshan Society, Jiva Mahale Marg, Opp Bahar Cinema, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400069. Pan/Gir No. : Aaapg4252C Appellant .. Respondent

Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) NFAC, erred in confirming the addition of Rs.16,38,893/- on account of long- term capital gain, without granting the exemption of section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessing officer (AO) has received information that ... assessee has not disclosed long term capital gains and claim of exemption U/sec54 of the Act. The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, further the AO has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and there

Pradeep Mahavir Sharma, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhpradeep Mahavir Sharma Vs. Ito 32(2)(5) B-501, Vasant Marvel Kautilya Bhawan, Avenue Grace Chsl Off Western 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, Expressway Highway, G Block Bkc, Borivali East, Bandra East, Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Avzps8060Q Appellant .. Respondent

main reasons for reopening was invoking the provision of section 50C of the Act as the assessee had not disclosed the income from long term capital gain as per the stamp duty value of the property sold. 4. During the course of assessment the assessee explained that they have purchased ... received the valuation report till the passing of the assessment order. Therefore, the AO has computed the long term capital gain at Rs 12,97,215/- after taking into consideration the value of the sold property as determined by the stamp valuation authority. 6. The assessee filed appeal before

Prabha Anil Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengalur

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleprabha Anil Gandhi V. Adit, Centralized Processing Centre Plot No. 70-L, Central Avenue 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No 48/1 48/2 Beratenaagrahara Begur Plaza Hotel Lane, Chembur Hosur Rd, Uttarahalli Hobli Mumbai - 400071 Bengaluru, Karnataka 560100 Pan: Acqpg9999J (Appellant) (Respondent)

filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 14.07.2019. In her return of income, the assessee has declared income from Long Term Capital Gain of ₹.3,22,370/-. From the computation of the capital gains, the Assessing Officer [Centralized Processing Centre] observed that the Long Term Capital ... eligible bonds and claimed exemption u/s. 54EC of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Accordingly, order u/s. 143(1) was completed and long term capital gain of ₹.58,07,342/- in place of ₹.3,22,370/- was determined. The above adjustment was made by the Assessing Officer

Surekha Arvind Jain, Mumbai vs. The ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsurekha Arvind Jain, Vs. The Ito – 32(1)(1), 301,3Rd Floor,Gulshan Kautilya Bhawan, Bldg No. 1, Juhu Lane, Bkc,Bandra (E), Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400058. Pan/Gir No. : Adlpj8732E Appellant .. Respondent

assessee has traded in the penny stock of PS IT Infrastructure and Service(formerly known as shilp investments Ltd) and has disclosed the long term capital gains of Rs.96,50,940/- and has exempted U/sec10(38) of the Act. Whereas the assessee has purchased the 15000 shares of Rs.10 ... transactions, modus operandi and the report of the kolkata investigation wing and the statement of persons and has doubted the earning of Long Term Capital Gains. The A.O find that there is a no correlation of the price rise and fall of the share price and was not satisfied with

Vivek Raghu Shetty, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT Circle-32(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhvivek Raghu Shetty Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 1/1, Shrinagar Building, Income-Tax Circle-32(3) Chandavarker Road, M.K. Road, New Marine Borivali (West), Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400092 Mumbai- 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeps2750D Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Anuj Kisnadwala Respondent By : Ajeya Kumar Ojha Date Of Hearing 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 11.03.2022 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Contention Of Assessing Officer That Shares Of M/S Comfort Intec Ltd Is A Penny Stock. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Appellant Is Engaged In Business Of Trading In Shares & Offered The Income Generated From The Same Under The Head Of 'Profit & Gain From Business & Profession & Not Claimed Benefit Of Exemption Under Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Deleting Addition Of Entire Sale Consideration Amounting To Rs.20,46,524/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S. 68 Of The Act Alleging The Same To Be Transaction In Penny Stock.

income generated from the same under the head of 'Profit and Gain from Business and Profession and not claimed benefit of exemption under Long Term Capital Gain. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting addition of entire sale consideration amounting to Rs.20 ... notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2018 on the basis of information received from the directorate of investigation in respect of generating bogus entries of long term capital gain in penny stock as a result of investigation carried out throughout the country. During the course of investigation it was found that

Varsha Shrikant Paranjape, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax - 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhvarsha Shrikant Vs. Acit, Circle 25(3) Paranjape, Paranjape C-10, 6Th Floor, Room No. Bungalow, 2Nd Floor, 34, 601, Pratyaksha Kar Mg Road, Vile Parle Bhavan, Bandra Kurla (East), Mumbai – 400057 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaapp6199H Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ronak Doshi, Chaitanya Doshi & Karan Jain Respondent By : Vithal Machindra Bhosale Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2023

Counsel submitted that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act has been made in the case of the assessee and the long term capital gain earned on the share of the sold land was duly offered to tax. He further submitted that after 4 years from the end of relevant ... without any valid reason. The ld. Counsel also referred the copy of computation of income filed with the original return of income wherein long term capital gain on sale of land was duly disclosed in the hand of the assessee as per the copy of the computation placed at page