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 gain for the purpose of Section 50 and such deeming fiction is with regard to applicability of Section 48 & 49. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a binding precedent on the issue which was not there at all. It is axiomatic that the decision cannot be relied upon which was not the issue or context

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 gain for the purpose of Section 50 and such deeming\nfiction is with regard to applicability of Section 48 & 49. The decision of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court cannot be a binding precedent on the issue which was not there at all.\nIt is axiomatic that the decision cannot be relied upon which was not the issue or\ncontext

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

capital gain for the\npurpose of Section 50 and such deeming fiction is with regard to applicability of Section 48 & 49.\nThe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be a binding precedent on the issue which was\nnot there at all. It is axiomatic that the decision cannot be relied upon which was not the issue or\ncontext

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Capital gains - Exemption under section 54 Purchase of two flats - In the course of assessment proceedings, AO asked as to why exemption under section 54 in respect of one house might not be withdrawn as deduction was available in respect of only one house. Assessee had submitted that both flats were taken in the same Vile Parle, Mumbai for residential

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

Gains of Rs. 23,11,153/- which is taxable under the provision of section 48 to 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 8,37,59,368/- which do not form part of total income as envisaged in the provision of section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iii) Whether

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

section 54 of the act of the assessee without considering\nthe submissions of the AR and ignoring the relevant facts of the\ncase and the legal position in this regard.\n2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the\nLd. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the decision of the\nLd.AO of disallowing

MOHAMEDALI H CHARANIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2007-08 Mr. Mohamedali H. Charania, C/O. M/S. Hasanali Virjee & Sons, Vs. 305, Gulab Bldg, 237, The Income Tax Officer, P.D’ Mello Road, -12(1)(2), Opp: G.P.O. Mumbai Mumbai [Pan : Aacpc0710B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

127 TTJ Lucknow 457 – wherein the Bench has categorically held that - Section 50C would apply in all cases and not merely where there is a taxable capital gain

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

capital gain with res consideration, available on page 24 to 29 of the Paper Book. available on page 24 to 29 of the Paper Book. available on page 24 to 29 of the Paper Book. Further, he referred to reply of the assessee dated 31.05.2017 Further, he referred to reply of the assessee dated 31.05.2017 Further, he referred to reply

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. VOLTAS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

127/- for A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs. 2,03,76,227/- for A.Y. 2014-15 on the share application money given by the assessee to the Associated Enterprise by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). 9. Brief facts on this issue as that after the Assessing Officer made the disallowance as per TPO order. Upon assessee’s appeal learned

KAPIL RAJKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3392/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kapil Rajkumar Jain Ito, Ward 1(3), बनाम/ 601, Paramount, H. N. Estate, Thane G.B. Road, Patlipada, Vs. Thane (W)-400 607 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afipj 4486 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kapil R. Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

127 ITR 713, which is further followed in Mrs. Umayal Ramanathan by ITAT Chennai and Karnatka High Court in the case of CIT v Maithreyi Pai (1985) 152 ITR 247 (Kar) c. In view of Joginder Singh Chawla, Appellant Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3) , Mumbai. I.T.A No.349/Mum/2010, the interest which was not claimed as deduction

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) of any subsequent assessment year which do not form part of total income as envisaged in the provisions of 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

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) of any subsequent assessment year which do not form part of total income as envisaged in the provisions of 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

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) of any subsequent assessment year which do not form part of total income as envisaged in the provisions of 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

RAMESH BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

127 wherein it has been held that amounts received on retirement by a partner is not subject to capital gains tax. In the above circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law." The issue of taxability of amount received by the partner on retirement from the partnership firm for extinguishment of his rights in the partnership

RAMESH BUILDERS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

127 wherein it has been held that amounts received on retirement by a partner is not subject to capital gains tax. In the above circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law." The issue of taxability of amount received by the partner on retirement from the partnership firm for extinguishment of his rights in the partnership

DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. CAPT. AVINASH J BATRA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7407/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Capt. Avinash Chander Dy. Cit., Range, 2(3), बनाम/ Batra, Room No. 556, 5 Th Floor, V. C/O Kucheria & Associates Aayakar Bhavan, 59, Jolly Maker No. 2 Mumbai-400 021 Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpb3384M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(2) of the Act, it was observed by the learned assessing officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) from the details filed by the assessee that the assessee has earned gains of Rs.92,17,544/- arising out of PMS accounts held with various funds, out of which Rs. 23,56,127/- was earned from short term capital

CAPT. AVINASH CHANDER BATRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7407/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Capt. Avinash Chander Dy. Cit., Range, 2(3), बनाम/ Batra, Room No. 556, 5 Th Floor, V. C/O Kucheria & Associates Aayakar Bhavan, 59, Jolly Maker No. 2 Mumbai-400 021 Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpb3384M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(2) of the Act, it was observed by the learned assessing officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) from the details filed by the assessee that the assessee has earned gains of Rs.92,17,544/- arising out of PMS accounts held with various funds, out of which Rs. 23,56,127/- was earned from short term capital

ACIT-17(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 2(14), is an expression of widest amplitude as the definition clause has re-emphasised this, by user of the words "..of any kind". Thus, any right which can be called as a "property", will be included in the definition of "capital asset". Further in the case of Dhurjati Gupta 127 TTJ 356 (Hyd), Hon‟ble Bench while dealing

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 2(14), is an expression of widest amplitude as the definition clause has re-emphasised this, by user of the words "..of any kind". Thus, any right which can be called as a "property", will be included in the definition of "capital asset". Further in the case of Dhurjati Gupta 127 TTJ 356 (Hyd), Hon‟ble Bench while dealing