DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

iii) u/s 10(38) of the Act on u/s 10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. 9.1 The income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

iii) u/s 10(38) of the Act on u/s 10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. 9.1 The income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

iii) u/s 10(38) of the Act on u/s 10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. 9.1 The income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

iii) u/s 10(38) of the Act on u/s 10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. securities where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. 9.1 The income

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

iii) of sub section (1), then it is taxed as capital gains arising from transfer of a short term capital asset. Secondly, the deeming provisions has been confined only to the purpose of computation of sections 48 and 49 of the Act and the capital gains then arising is deemed to be from transfer of short term capital assets

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital in\nnature after completion of project when revenue had already been recognized\nfrom the project?\"\nThe assessee before us also filed additional ground which reads as under:\nAdditional Ground No. III: Allowability of maintenance expenses of Rs.\n92.32.199/-\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the maintenance\nexpenditure

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital in nature after completion of project when revenue had already been recognized from the project?” 2. The assessee before us also filed additional ground which reads as under: “Additional Ground No. III: Allowability of maintenance expenses of Rs. 92.32.199/- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the maintenance expenditure

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

iii)\nthe actual cost of any asset falling within the block of\nassets acquired during the previous year,\nsuch excess shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising\nfrom the transfer of short-term capital assets;\"\n7. From the bare reading of the above provision, it is observed that the capital asset\nforming part of block of assets, where

MORGAN STANLEY MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

iii) Assessee being resident of Mauritius, Sec. 45 by virtue of the India uritius, Sec. 45 by virtue of the India- Mauritius tax treaty was made inapplicable in respect of "capital gains" Mauritius tax treaty was made inapplicable in respect of "capital gains" Mauritius tax treaty was made inapplicable in respect of "capital gains" and therefore the "capital losses" will

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

10(38) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of long term capital loss as claimed by the assessee. Ground nos. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are allowed.” 11. And therefore, according to Ld Adv Shri Deepak Chopra on merits also the action of the AO in the original assessment after investigation

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

10. Sec. 45(2) which is relevant reads as under : Sec. 45(2) which is relevant reads as under : "45. Capital gains.—(1) ............. (1) ............. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1) the profits or gains arising from the (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

10. Sec. 45(2) which is relevant reads as under : Sec. 45(2) which is relevant reads as under : "45. Capital gains.—(1) ............. (1) ............. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1) the profits or gains arising from the (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

10. Sec. 45(2) which is relevant reads as under : Sec. 45(2) which is relevant reads as under : "45. Capital gains.—(1) ............. (1) ............. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1) the profits or gains arising from the (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner

THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

10. Sec. 45(2) which is relevant reads as under : Sec. 45(2) which is relevant reads as under : "45. Capital gains.—(1) ............. (1) ............. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1) the profits or gains arising from the (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub the profits or gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NITIN KUMAR DINDAYAL DIDWANIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

10(38) of the Act. ix. Based on the details available, show cause notice was issued on 16th November, 2017 that why the above long term capital gain was not considered as income under Section 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer on verification of trading data of VERITAS Group cases, analyzed all the ten companies pointed

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S NITIN KUMAR DINDAYAL DIDWANIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

10(38) of the Act. ix. Based on the details available, show cause notice was issued on 16th November, 2017 that why the above long term capital gain was not considered as income under Section 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer on verification of trading data of VERITAS Group cases, analyzed all the ten companies pointed

HAZEL MERCANTILE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

10(38) of the Act. ix. Based on the details available, show cause notice was issued on 16th November, 2017 that why the above long term capital gain was not considered as income under Section 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer on verification of trading data of VERITAS Group cases, analyzed all the ten companies pointed

HAZEL MERCANTILE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 5(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Sr No Ita/ Co. No. Appellant/ Cross Respondent Objector 1 Jt. Commissioner Of Nitin Kumar 2093/Mum/2019 Income (Osd) Tax, Dindayal Didwania (A.Y. 2011-12) Central Circle 5(1), 172, Kshitij Room No. 1926, 19Th 2094/Mum/2019 Vs. Building, 47, (A.Y. 2012-13) Floor, Air India Napean Sea Road, Building, Mumbai-400 036 2095/Mum/2019 Nariman Point, (A.Y. 2014-15) Mumbai-400 021 5 Pan No.Aacpd7055J 6 Co No. 29/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2092/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2010-11) 7 Co No. 30/Mum/2021 Jt. Commissioner (Arising Out Of Ita Of Income (Osd) No.2093/Mum/2019 Nitin Kumar Tax, For A.Y. 2011-12) Dindayal Didwania 8 Co No. 32/Mum/2021 Central Circle (Arising Out Of Ita 172, Kshitij Building, Vs. 5(1), No.2094/Mum/2019 47, Napean Sea Room No. 1926, For A.Y. 2012-13) Road, Mumbai-400 19Th Floor, Air 9 Co No. 34/Mum/2021 036 India Building, (Arising Out Of Ita Nariman Point, No.2095/Mum/2019 Mumbai-400 021 For A.Y. 2014-15) 10 Co No. 38/Mum/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2096/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16)

10(38) of the Act. ix. Based on the details available, show cause notice was issued on 16th November, 2017 that why the above long term capital gain was not considered as income under Section 68 of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer on verification of trading data of VERITAS Group cases, analyzed all the ten companies pointed