VANGUARD TOTAL INTERNATIONAL STOCK INDEX FUNDQ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

104 without appreciating that there was no delay in filing the return of income and payment of taxes by the Appellant. Ground of Appeal No. 7: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 12. The learned ACIT erred in initiating penalty under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act, alleging under reporting of income

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

104) It was held before the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shyam R Pawar (2015) 54 taxmann 108 (BOM), it was held that where demat account and contract note showed the details of share transactions and assessing officer had not proved said transactions as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated

CHITRA AVDHESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

section 68 of the act does not arise at all.\nIn this connection, the Hon'ble Tribunal's attention is invited to\nthe Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of\nBhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) wherein it has been\nheld that pass book supplied by the bank could not be\nregarded as book

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

section 68 of the act does not arise at all.\nIn this connection, the Hon'ble Tribunal's attention is invited to\nthe Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in the case of\nBhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) wherein it has been\nheld that pass book supplied by the bank could not be\nregarded as book

SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

104/-. Still not satisfied with by the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. The plea of the Ld. AR Shri Nishit Gandhi before me was that to the authorities below did not took into consideration the crucial fact that the property in question

ACIT-1(2)(1, MUMBAI vs. MERITON INFOTECH PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Meriton Infotech Pvt. Ltd. G-4, Khetan Bhavan, Acit -1(2)(1) Ek Omkar Premises Co- Room No. 535, Aaykar Ops, Bhavan, Vs. 198, Jamshedji Tata Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecm4348N Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2024

104 read with section 391 of the Companies Act. The Companies Act, 1956 has now been replaced by Companies Act, 2013, wherein Section 68 of the Act with effect from Meriton Infotech Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 17-18 1st April, 2014 covers the provisions of buy back of shares and Section 66 with effect from 15th December, 2016, covers the provision

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

gain Held. yes [Paras 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee]" 104. In the case of Pavankumar Bachhraj Chandan reported in [2024] 161 taxmann.com 674 (Mumbai - Trib.), wherein held as under: Section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 Cash credits (Share dealings) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee had claimed long-term capital

M/S MASCOT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(2)(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mascot Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer 2(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Indian Mercantile Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chambers, 14R, Kamani Marg, Mumbai-400020. Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaccm 6531 H Appellant Respondent

capital gain from both these properties totaling to Rs.40,57,280/-. The addition from both these properties totaling to Rs.40,57,280/ from both these properties totaling to Rs.40,57,280/ being sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer levied being sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer levied being sustained

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEVILLE TULI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

sections are not clearly speaking about the allowability of interest paid on housing loan as part of cost of acquisition in computing the capital gains. I have come across conflicting decisions of the tribunals and high courts on allowability of deduction of interest expenditure on housing loan u/s 48 as cost of acquisition. The following case laws have been referred

JM FINANCIAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 143(3) was passed on 06/12/2010 assessing the total income at Rs.1761,62,51,490/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown long term capital gain of Rs.1730,58,51,513/- on sale of shares in JMMSSPL to MSSPL. The Assessing Officer proceeded to treat this gain as the business income of the assessee for the reason

DCIT 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. J.M. FINANCIAL LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

section 143(3) was passed on 06/12/2010 assessing the total income at Rs.1761,62,51,490/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown long term capital gain of Rs.1730,58,51,513/- on sale of shares in JMMSSPL to MSSPL. The Assessing Officer proceeded to treat this gain as the business income of the assessee for the reason

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. JAYSHREE SHAILESH SAVLA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal o

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jayshree Shailesh Savla, Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, A/7, Mani Bhavan, Swastik Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Society N S Road, No. 3, Bandra East, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aksps 2546 R Appellant Respondent

section 54F of the Income tax Act, 1961 claimed on the cost of the flat, which is Act, 1961 claimed on the cost of the flat, which is Act, 1961 claimed on the cost of the flat, which is contrary to the findings that receipt of flat does not amount to the contrary to the findings that receipt of flat

VINEEET MITTAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 3(3) , MUMBAI

Accordingly, this appeal is\nalso allowed

capital gain is not allowable.\nf. Failure of Assessee to discharge his onus: The assessee has not\nbeen able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be\nnatural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such\nshare transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly\nstructured one.\ng. Ignorance of the assessee about shares

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

capital gain is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub section (1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

VINEET MITTAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT . CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, this appeal is\nalso allowed

capital gain is not allowable.\nf. Failure of Assessee to discharge his onus: The assessee has not\nbeen able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be\nnatural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such\nshare transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly\nstructured one.\ng. Ignorance of the assessee about shares

SABEENA SILK MILLS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Narndra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesabeena Silk Mills Vs Income-Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Apurva Industrial Estate, Mumbai, Majwana Road, Marol Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aabfs3210R Appellant Respondent

104 taxmann.com 129], wherein it was held, in A.Y. 2011-12, that brought forward business loss and long-term capital loss could be set off against short-term capital gains computed under section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIRAL SARAF MITTAL , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

section 68 of the Act.” 7. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) by relying on various judicial pronouncements allowed the ground raised by the assessee observing as under: - “8. It is observed that in order to establish the genuineness

MR BHAVESH KANTILAL KUBADIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-21(1)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

104, 1st Floor, Vs. 7, 2nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AGRPK2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue by: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date