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 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

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

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

INCLINE REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was to be rejected, the Assessee was entitled to claim deduction for interest cost while computing Short Term Capital Gains arising from sale of mutual 8 Assessment Year 2015-2016 funds as the interest formed part of ‘cost of acquisition’. Reliance in this regards was placed on the following judicial precedents forming part

THANWARDAS LALCHAND MOTWANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(3)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Capital Gains Scheme Account on 26.09.2013 and further the new residential house was purchased on 29.09.2014, i.e. after a period of two years from the sale of the original asset, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit u/s 54 of the Act. 12. From the perusal of the original return of income filed by the assessee

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

3012/Mum/2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Capital Gains 69A Total KB AY 2014-2015 1,15,96,000 - 1,15,96,000 AY 2015-2016 4,96,95,000 2,50,000 4,99,45,000 AY 2016-2017 2,98,20,000 - 2,98,20,000 The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others

ACIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

capital gain and therefore, expenditure therefore, expenditure connected thereon cannot be held to be cannot be held to be related to the business of the assessee related to the business of the assessee. This appears to be a appears to be a factual error on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) n the part

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

Capital Gains - NOC amount received from Eksali land\n2) Addition of Rs.2,50,000 U/s 69A-entries in diaries not pertaining to NOC were taxed under section 69A\n\n15. Similar additions have been made in other assessment years and the summary of additions which have been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on the same reasoning which has been

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PHULCHAND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

capital gains with brought forward business loss and the basis of such claim has been stated to be the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of M/s Digital Electronics Ltd. He observed further that this claim of the assessee could not be said to be otherwise deductible or prima facie deductible. The Act provides for a specific provision

AGARWAL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalagarwal Holdings Private Ltd. 211, 2Nd Floor Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Road Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059 ............... Appellant Pan: Aauca5094K V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 ……………… Respondent Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

capital gains under section 111A of the Act was a matter of enquiry, the aspect whether the income can also be taxed under the head “business income” as the assessee was formed explicitly for conducting the investment activity was not examined. Once there was no inquiry or examination by the AO on this issue, we find merit in the submissions

THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

Capital Gains\nKB | 69A | Total |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| AY 2014-2015 | 1,15,96,000 | - | 1,15,96,000 |\n| AY 2015-2016 | 4,96,95,000 | 2,50,000 | 4,99,45,000 |\n| AY 2016-2017 | 2,98,20,000 | | 2,98,20,000 |\n\n18\nITA No.3012/Mum/2025 and others\nThe Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. and others

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE ESTATE INVESTMENT COMPANY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Gains” amounting to\n₹4,96,95,000, and under section 69A amounting to ₹2,50,000,\ncannot be upheld and are hereby deleted.\n\n42. Having disposed of the additions of merits, we now turn\nto legal ground concerning the validity of the assessment\nitself. Upon the submissions and the judicial precedents,\nespecially of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

PHULCHAND EXPORTS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Section 119(2)(b) for such\nfurther claims and hence, it was held that the fresh claim after filing of\nreturn of income was not akin to an apparent claim and hence not\nallowable. Accordingly, this ground of appeal was dismissed.\n18. Before us, the ld.AR relied on Pruthvi Brokers and\nShareholders P LTD 349 ITR 336 BOM holding that