“Section 94(8)”

Section References (mined)Section 94Section 94(8)5 judgments

RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6577/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 94(7)Section 94(8)

assessee further contended that the transactions relating to investment in mutual fund units and the applicability of section 94(7) and section 94(8) of the Act had already been examined by the Assessing Officer during the original scrutiny proceedings and, therefore, reopening on the 4 Ramesh Purshottam Modi same

SAMEER EXPORTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as infructuous

ITA 834/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JClT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(iiia)

therefore the learned CIT-A upheld the finding of the AO. However, the learned CIT-A further held that the provisions of section 94(8) is not applicable as the mutual funds were purchased by the assessee 3 months prior to the record date. Hence, the learned CIT-A deleted

PRAVEEN RANJAN SINHA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 399/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshpraveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Sa No. 57/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 399/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv Ms. Bhavya Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharambir Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 2Section 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 94(8)

facts on record. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in law in ignoring the specific provisions of section 94(8) of the Income Tax Act and the amendment brought to the same by Finance Act 2022 which was categorically made effective only from 01.04.2023hence ... incurring loss and setting-off against capital gains income is an "abuse of law" cannot be affirmed. 32. We may also refer to section 94(8) of the Act, which has been inserted by the Finance (No.2) w.e.f. 01.04.2005, and it provides that loss arising on bonus stripping of units

DCIT, CC -1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 619/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

section 94(7) as applied by Commissioner is not applicable at all. The correct provision to cure mischief of bonus stripping is section 94(8) came into effect only from 01.04.2005 and was not applicable for current assessment year. The assessee also relied upon the judgement of DCIT vs Ghanshyam ... Shambhu Mercantile Ltd (SC) (224 CTR 499). These judgments support the legal position that provision of bonus striping contained in section 94 (8) which is enacted w.e.f. 01.04.2005 cannot be invoked retrospectively.\n58. The assessee's contention before us is that

M/S. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(4) (EARLIER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-8,KOLKATTA), MUMBAI

ITA 612/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

section 94(7) as applied by\nCommissioner is not applicable at all. The correct provision to\ncure mischief of bonus stripping is section 94(8) came into effect\nonly from 01.04.2005 and was not applicable for current\n assessment year. The assessee also relied upon the judgement\nof DCIT ... Shambhu Mercantile Ltd (SC)\n(224 CTR 499). These judgments support the legal position that\nprovision of bonus striping contained in section 94 (8) which is\nenacted w.e.f. 01.04.2005 cannot be invoked retrospectively.\n\n58. The assessee's contention before us is that