“period of holding”

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

been made by treating the entire sale consideration as taxable gain without examination of cost of acquisition, indexed cost, nature of asset, period of holding or computation as per sections 45 and 48. Such an approach, though prompted by absence of details, does not constitute a proper determination of taxable

BANG EQUITY BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

original cost of acquisition of the BSE membership cards (Section 55 (2) (ab) and not at w.d.v, of the membership cards. Further period of holding should have been taken at the date of acquisition of the BSE Membership Card and not the date of acquisition of the BSE Shares allotted ... taken at original cost of acquisition of membership card and not the w.d.v. by considering section 55(2)(ab) of the Act and period of holding for indexation from date of acquisition of membership card i.e. FY 2009-10 and not the date of BSE shares received on corporatization

MR. ANMOL GOVINDRAM SEKHRI,BANDRA ARCADE, NANDI GULLY, OPP BANDRA RAILWAY ST vs. CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmrs. Suneeta Sekhri V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of (Legal Heir Of Mr. Anmol बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 16(2), Govindram Sekhri), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Ground Floor, Bandra Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Nandi Gully, Opp. Bandra Railway Station, Bandra(West), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alhps9957L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

covered the case of the assessee who had also supplied all the same details that were provided in this case and the period of holding was longer. 4.3 It is pleaded that in order to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the order must be erroneous and also

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

cost price is more\nthan the face value, the loss is not booked in the year of sale but is spread\nover the period of holding. If the securities are held as investment, there is\nno question of allowance of any amount till such time as they are sold

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

booked in the year of sale but is spread ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 35 over the period of holding. If the securities are held as investment, there is no question of allowance of any amount till such time as they are sold or redeemed

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

cost price is more\nthan the face value, the loss is not booked in the year of sale but is spread\nover the period of holding. If the securities are held as investment, there is\nno question of allowance of any amount till such time as they are sold

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

booked in the year of sale but is spread ITA No.1451, 1452, 1547 & 1548/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2018-19) 35 over the period of holding. If the securities are held as investment, there is no question of allowance of any amount till such time as they are sold or redeemed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3),, MUMBAI vs. FA CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

availability of assessing officer was not justified in doubting the availability of such cash in hand for the sole ground of long period of holding, such cash in hand for the sole ground of long period of holding, such cash in hand for the sole ground of long period

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI vs. FA CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

hand, the\nassessing officer was not justified in doubting the availability of\nsuch cash in hand for the sole ground of long period of holding,\nwithout bringing rebutting such contention.\"\nThe Tribunal also noted:\n\"The assessing officer has not brought any adverse material or\nevidence on record that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI vs. F A CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

hand, the\nassessing officer was not justified in doubting the availability of\nsuch cash in hand for the sole ground of long period of holding,\nwithout bringing rebutting such contention.\"\nThe Tribunal also noted:\n\"The assessing officer has not brought any adverse material or\nevidence on record that

PADMAJA RAJESH HARVE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethpadmaja Rajesh Harve Vs. Acit-41(1)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilyabhavan, 1201-A, 64 Greens Building, Tagore Road, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandrakurla Santacruz West, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No:Aaxph1769E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain arose from the appreciation of appellants’ share- holding in the company, which she was holding since the year 2004. The period of holding was more than 12 years from 20.05.2004 to 16.09.2016. Therefore, the assesseehas rightly shown the impugned gain as LTCG and claimed exemption ... lower authorities. He submitted that the company was converted into LLP on 15.09.2016 and the appellant withdrew Rs.7.14 crore on 14.11.2016. Hence, the period of holding was less than 3 years; therefore, both AO and CIT(A) have ITA No.5343/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 Padmaja Rajesh Harve rightly treated the subject gain

ARVIND BHAGUJI KANGANE,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-27(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 of appeal are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Arvind Bhanguji Kangane Dcit, Circle – 27(1), Mumbai Shreyas Building, 11Th Road, Plot No. 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Vs 553, Flat No. 901, 9Th Floor, Opp. Railway Station Building, Navi Heritage Pride Building, Chembur, Mumbai – 400703. Mumbai – 400026. [Pan: Afypk1856R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

report, bank statements, bhav copy, letter of allotment, etc had not been doubted by the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A); b) The period of holding of listed shares in appellant's D-mat account exceeds 16 to 21 months and such shares had been sold on floor ... assessee received total consideration of Rs. 2.50 crore. The shares were sold at average rate of Rs. 250/- per share. The period of holding was ranging from 17 to 21 months. The assessee before the lower authorities furnished contract note cum sale bills, ledger account of a stock broker, bank

SMT. SHREE JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, we hold that

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

registered “Sale Deed” and the date of sale was 07.08.2015 as per the registered “Sale Deed” dated 07.08.2015. Since the period of holding was less than 36 months, it was a "short-term capital gain”. The AO, accordingly, computed STCG of Rs.4,56,13,937/-. He also referred ... valid transfer of the capital asset by way of a registered sale deed. Therefore, there was short-term capital gain because the period of holding was less than 36 months. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions