J P TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 111A amounting to Rs. 43,75,895/- ought to be set off against current year short term capital gains taxable under normal provision. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify, or change all of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. The assessee is an AOP engaged

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA SURESH JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

SURESH K JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

u/s. 154 of the Act on the grounds that mistakes have taken place in allowing the claim of deduction of direct legal expenses and valuation of the property as on 01.04.1981 while calculating long term capital gain. 11. Letter was served on 10.03.2016 from valuation offer requesting for details in order to determine value of the property. The assessee objected

VALUABLE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAC (APPEALS)-11 PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Valuable Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cit(A)-11, Dcit Central Circle 1 Plot No. 53/1 Media Info Park, Road, Thane, Ashok It Park 6Th Floor, No.7, Midc, Near Akruti Trade Vs. Ward No. -16, Wagle Industrial Centre, Andheri (East), Estate, Thane (West)-400604. Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaccv 2732 P Appellant Respondent

capital gain and income from other sources were made. Thereafter, the Assessing income from other sources were made. Thereafter, the Assessing income from other sources were made. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer CPC passed a rectification order u/s 154

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court

SMT. MONICA CHATTOPADHYA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-28(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

rectification proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. He submitted that the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act are just and proper and relied on the same. 16. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that during the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act assessee submitted working of long term capital gain

PRIYA KAPIL TODARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

rectification orders passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The learned Addl./JCIT (Appeal)-6 Delhi, ought not to have dealt with an issue neither disputed nor appealed before her. 4. The appellant prays that appropriate Order be passed, deleting all those portions of the order of the Addl./JCIT (Appeal)-6 Delhi, denying

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

capital gain was in respect of only shares of 9 companies. (d) Most of the transactions were delivery based. (e) There was no borrowing. (f) There was huge dividend income. (g) Magnitude of transaction was not of much relevance. (h) Scrips of assessee were not held as stock-in-trade. 5.4 The decision of Ld. CIT(A) was not accepted

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

capital gain was in respect of only shares of 9 companies. (d) Most of the transactions were delivery based. (e) There was no borrowing. (f) There was huge dividend income. (g) Magnitude of transaction was not of much relevance. (h) Scrips of assessee were not held as stock-in-trade. 5.4 The decision of Ld. CIT(A) was not accepted

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

capital gain was in respect of only shares of 9 companies. (d) Most of the transactions were delivery based. (e) There was no borrowing. (f) There was huge dividend income. (g) Magnitude of transaction was not of much relevance. (h) Scrips of assessee were not held as stock-in-trade. 5.4 The decision of Ld. CIT(A) was not accepted