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

Gains (STCG) after adjusting the Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) as per below working: Particular STCG on Equity (taxable STCG on Debts (taxable u/s.111A @ 15%) – Rs. @ normal rate) – Rs. STCG 29,00,610 1,78,56,119 Less : STCL on Debts Nil (2,99,547) STCL on Equity Nil (43,75,895) STCG offered

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 54F(4) of 1961 Act stipulates mandatory condition of depositing the unutilized amount in capital gain account with bank or as specified by Central Government. 9. We have considered rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including case laws relied upon. We have observed that assessee transferred 837 shares of Bombino Video Private Limited

DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani Vs ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Gujarat)? 3. Brief facts relating to the above grounds of appeal are that search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act (for short

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

capital gain as unexplained cash credit, Rs. 1,25,00,000/- made on account of treating unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 62,81,000/- disallowed under section 57 totally amounting to Rs. 6,46,91,500/- may kindly be deleted and the income declared by the assessee may be accepted.” 10. After considering detailed submissions

DY CIT CENTRAL CIR-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AMIT AVINASH BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. Brief facts relating to the above grounds of appeal are, search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act (for short “Act”) were initiated on ABIL Group on 21.07.2017 and various residences of the partners/directors of the group situated at Mumbai and Pune were covered by search action

DY CIT CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. Brief facts relating to the above grounds of appeal are, search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act (for short “Act”) were initiated on ABIL Group on 21.07.2017 and various residences of the partners/directors of the group situated at Mumbai and Pune were covered by search action

DY. CIT CC- 2(3), MUMBAI vs. AMIT AVINASH BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. Brief facts relating to the above grounds of appeal are, search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act (for short “Act”) were initiated on ABIL Group on 21.07.2017 and various residences of the partners/directors of the group situated at Mumbai and Pune were covered by search action

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

119/- as exempt capital gain u/s 10(38) of the act. However, on the basis of information received by the AO, that the price of the shares of the company were manipulated and the company was a penny stock. Therefore, the assessment was reopened and ultimately order of assessment u/s 147/144B of the act was passed thereby making additions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

119/- as exempt capital gain u/s 10(38) of the act. However, on the basis of information received by the AO, that the price of the shares of the company were manipulated and the company was a penny stock. Therefore, the assessment was reopened and ultimately order of assessment u/s 147/144B of the act was passed thereby making additions

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

capital gains either is cost or is improvement in the asset. The ratio laid down in Addl. CIT vs K.S. Gupta 119 ITR 372 (AP), CIT vs Mithilesh Kumari 92 ITR 9 (Del.), CIT vs M. Pai 152 ITR 247 (Karn.) and Naozar Chenoy vs CIT 234 ITR 95 (AP). Section

DR. NARENDRA D. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CRN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5157 To 5159/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 To 2008-09) Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Vs. Acit, Cc-34, Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400071 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd 5020 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A Of The Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Years Pertains To Disallowance Of Claim Of Management Fees While Computing Short Term Capital Gain U/S.48 Of The I.T.Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Shown Income Under The Head Short Term Capital Gain. While Computing The Same Assessee Has Claimed

Section 12B(2)(ii) of I.T.Act, 1922. It was also argued that interest paid by the assessee did not come under the category of expenditure incurred for making any addition or alteration to the capital asset and hence cannot be included in the actual cost of the capital asset. However, the High Court rejected the contentions of the revenue

DR. NARENDRA D. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CRN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5157 To 5159/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 To 2008-09) Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Vs. Acit, Cc-34, Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400071 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd 5020 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A Of The Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Years Pertains To Disallowance Of Claim Of Management Fees While Computing Short Term Capital Gain U/S.48 Of The I.T.Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Shown Income Under The Head Short Term Capital Gain. While Computing The Same Assessee Has Claimed

Section 12B(2)(ii) of I.T.Act, 1922. It was also argued that interest paid by the assessee did not come under the category of expenditure incurred for making any addition or alteration to the capital asset and hence cannot be included in the actual cost of the capital asset. However, the High Court rejected the contentions of the revenue

DR. NARENDRA D. DESAI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CRN CIR 34, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5157 To 5159/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 To 2008-09) Dr. Narendra D. Desai, Vs. Acit, Cc-34, Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, Building No.5, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai- 400071 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aacpd 5020 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri N.P.Singh : सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2008-09, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A Of The Act. 2. Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Years Pertains To Disallowance Of Claim Of Management Fees While Computing Short Term Capital Gain U/S.48 Of The I.T.Act. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Is An Individual, Shown Income Under The Head Short Term Capital Gain. While Computing The Same Assessee Has Claimed

Section 12B(2)(ii) of I.T.Act, 1922. It was also argued that interest paid by the assessee did not come under the category of expenditure incurred for making any addition or alteration to the capital asset and hence cannot be included in the actual cost of the capital asset. However, the High Court rejected the contentions of the revenue

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 ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

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 ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

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 ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

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 ()

gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on for in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the treated as part of the profits and gains: profits and gains: Provided that the Assessing Officer

RAVI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI

In the result, all remaining ground are allowed with the aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

119 & 120 of PB. Thus, the AO is directed to consider the sale consideration of shares at Rs. 18.42 Crore for the purpose of computing long term capital gain. Thus, various sub-grounds of ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed. 17. So far as other grounds of appeal which relates to deduction under section

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/

gains. Likewise, a business as a going concern would constitute a capital asset within the meaning of section 45 of the Act. Route permits, for plying buses, issued by authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act, are property for the deprivation of which compensation is payable to the permit holder, hence, such route permits are capital assets in the hands