ITO TDS 3 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND HOMI KERMANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito Tds 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aappk3340Q Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Shri R.K. Kotain (Ar)

TDS 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1st Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. AAPPK3340Q Revenue by Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. DR) Respondent by Shri R.K. Kotain (AR) सुनवाई क" तार

ACIT, CIR.- 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ABHAY RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4 ITA No. 4983 Mum 2016-Shri Abhay Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Cost of new Flat as per 2,06,86,250 Agreement Stamp Duty 10,16,960 Registration Fees 31,100 Legal Fees 3,940 Service Tax & VAT on 9,90,176 construction (8+9+15) Reimburs. Of TDS payable u/s 45,393 194IA (11+16) Cost of Marble Flooring

ABHAY R. AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Abhay R. Aggarwal, The Commissioner Of Flat No.15, Vijay Mahal, Income Tax (Appeals)-28, D Road, Vs. Mumbai Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaapa7909A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajen J. Damani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2018 O R D E R

54F mandates that hole of sale consideration has to be invested in new residential house and amount not so invested has to be invested in specified assets. We find that the similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Mustansir I Tehsilder vs. ITO in ITA No.6108/M/2017 wherein the Tribunal has held as under: “10. Section

KRISHNAGOPAL TILAKRAJ KAPOOR,GHATKOPAR EAST vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GRANT ROAD

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed as above for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Krishnagopal Tilakraj Kapoor Acit 14(2)(1) Flat No. 13, Plot No. 353 Matru Mandir Triveni Building, Vallabh Vs. Building Baugh Exten. Lane Grant Road Ghatkopar East Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 077. 007. Pan : Aahpk0342G Appellant Respondent

4. The second addition made by Ld. AO relates to determination of annual ratable value and deemed rental income from properties to the extent of Rs. 8,80,175/-. The Ld. AO made this addition because the Ld. AO opined that there are two flats at Safal Twin Apartments at Chembur. During the appeal proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) remanded

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

TDS deducted (by the builder) on the interest payable against their “Loans & Advances” is claimed as refund. 4.7 A perusal of all the 70 benami concerns managed and controlled by Bhanwarlal Jain Group show that all of them have the same features mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This shows that all the 70 concerns are not into any genuine business

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

TDS deducted (by the builder) on the interest payable against their “Loans & Advances” is claimed as refund. 4.7 A perusal of all the 70 benami concerns managed and controlled by Bhanwarlal Jain Group show that all of them have the same features mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This shows that all the 70 concerns are not into any genuine business

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

TDS deducted (by the builder) on the interest payable against their “Loans & Advances” is claimed as refund. 4.7 A perusal of all the 70 benami concerns managed and controlled by Bhanwarlal Jain Group show that all of them have the same features mentioned in the preceding paragraph. This shows that all the 70 concerns are not into any genuine business

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

4 Decision on grounds of appeal no.1: 4.1 The relevant facts are like this. The assessee is a firm which is engaged in the business of builders & developers. A search & seizure action was conducted in the Bhanwarlal Jain group of cases by Investigation Wing Mumbai. As a result of search, it was found by the Investigation Wing that this group

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

4 Decision on grounds of appeal no.1: 4.1 The relevant facts are like this. The assessee is a firm which is engaged in the business of builders & developers. A search & seizure action was conducted in the Bhanwarlal Jain group of cases by Investigation Wing Mumbai. As a result of search, it was found by the Investigation Wing that this group

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

4 Decision on grounds of appeal no.1: 4.1 The relevant facts are like this. The assessee is a firm which is engaged in the business of builders & developers. A search & seizure action was conducted in the Bhanwarlal Jain group of cases by Investigation Wing Mumbai. As a result of search, it was found by the Investigation Wing that this group

ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

4 Decision on grounds of appeal no.1: 4.1 The relevant facts are like this. The assessee is a firm which is engaged in the business of builders & developers. A search & seizure action was conducted in the Bhanwarlal Jain group of cases by Investigation Wing Mumbai. As a result of search, it was found by the Investigation Wing that this group

JITENDRA M KITAVAT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

4 Decision on grounds of appeal no.1: 4.1 The relevant facts are like this. The assessee is a firm which is engaged in the business of builders & developers. A search & seizure action was conducted in the Bhanwarlal Jain group of cases by Investigation Wing Mumbai. As a result of search, it was found by the Investigation Wing that this group

ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. JITENDRA MADANLAL KITAWAT (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

4 Decision on grounds of appeal no.1: 4.1 The relevant facts are like this. The assessee is a firm which is engaged in the business of builders & developers. A search & seizure action was conducted in the Bhanwarlal Jain group of cases by Investigation Wing Mumbai. As a result of search, it was found by the Investigation Wing that this group

ACIT CIR 1, THANE vs. HANMANT D. JAGDALE, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue has no force and the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit Circle-1, Shri Hanmant D. Jagdale, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Prop. M/S Rohit Enterprises, ‘B’ Wing, Room No. 22, Gr. Floor, Tamanna Chs, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Vs. Pada No. 2, Yashodhan Nagar, Estate, Thane (W),-400604. Lokmanya Nagar, Thane (W)-400606. Pan: Acnpj7172P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 253of Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is directed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-II, Thane dated 15.02.2013 for AY 2008-09. The Revenue has raised only one ground of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee’s claim of exemption

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JINENDRA MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

4,78,81,26,125 BANKING REGULATION ACT, Loan A/c bearing 1949. This establishes the identity account no. and creditworthiness of the bank. 917030046710883 Further, to establish the genuineness of the transaction, the appellant has already submitted his own Axis Bank Savings bank account statement evidencing receipt of amounts by the appellant and corresponding Axis Bank Super Saver Loan account

HUNTSMAN INVESTMENTS (NETHERLANDS),MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F 48[, 54G and 54H]]]]], be chargeable to income-tax under the head\n\"Capital gains\", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer\ntook place.\"\nThe assessee had acquired shares of Huntsman International (India) Private\nLimited (HIIPL) in different tranches from the year 2001 up to 2014. HIIPL\ndemerged

SEEMA HEERA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

TDS was given at Nil in respect of the sale of immovable property of the assessee (l.e. Flat No. 202, 2nd floor, Vasundhara, Janki Kutir, Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai-400 049). A copy of the same was also marked to the assessee with a direction that she is required to file her return of income

BAJINATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 18, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafb2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent)

54F by accepting genuineness of capital gain. 2. In the case of P.V.Sreenijin vs. CIT(Central)(2014) 106 DTR 087,while deciding the validity of notice issued by the CIT u/s 263 of the Act, in the writ filed by the assessee, Kerala High Court vide order dtd. 30.05.2014 has held that Commissioner found that order was erroneous for reason