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)

capital gain of Rs. 92,66,395/- arising from sale of 837 shares of Bombino Video Private Limited, against which assessee claimed that she has invested in a new residential property valued at Rs. 91,86,156/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 54F of 1961 Act. The assessee claimed that she purchased a property at Panchgini (Mahabaleshwar) which

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

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

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. 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

DCIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CEAT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

2(19AA) of the Act, the capital gain tax would not arise in the hands of the company. It is submitted that detailed submissions were made in this regard before the Assessing Officer, which have been even noted by the Assessing Officer, however he has not dealt with this issue in his order. Further, submissions in this regard were also

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed

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

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

119 TAXMAN 91 (DELHI) is under: "7. In the instant case, as noticed above, exemption under section 11 was disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

119 TAXMAN 91 (DELHI) is under: "7. In the instant case, as noticed above, exemption under section 11 was disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

119 TAXMAN 91 (DELHI) is under: "7. In the instant case, as noticed above, exemption under section 11 was disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

119 TAXMAN 91 (DELHI) is under: "7. In the instant case, as noticed above, exemption under section 11 was disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw

ACIT- CC -3, MUMBAI vs. AYM SYNTEX LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

119(2)(b) of the Act. Ground no. 2 is accordingly dismissed. accordingly dismissed.” 14.1 However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the However, the Ld. CIT(A) also disallowed the claim of the assessee on merit observing as under: on merit observing as under