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

2(11) of the Act it does not cease to be part of block of assets and description of the asset by the assessee in the balance sheet as an investment is meaningless to avoid payment of tax on short term capital on sale of building. As long as assessee continues business, the building forming part of the block

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

2(11) of the Act it does not cease to be\npart of block of assets and description of the asset by the assessee in the balance\nsheet as an investment is meaningless to avoid payment of tax on short term capital\non sale of building. As long as assessee continues business, the building forming part\nof the block

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

2(11) of the Act it does not cease to be part of block of assets and\ndescription of the asset by the assessee in the balance sheet as an investment is meaningless to\navoid payment of tax on short term capital on sale of building. As long as assessee continues\nbusiness, the building forming part of the block

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

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)

2. We find that by the impugned order, the Tribunal while holding that amounts received by a partner on his retirement from partnership firm are exempt from capital gains tax relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154/189 Taxman 1 (Bom). Counsel for the revenue is unable

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)

2. We find that by the impugned order, the Tribunal while holding that amounts received by a partner on his retirement from partnership firm are exempt from capital gains tax relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Prashant S. Joshi v. ITO [2010] 324 ITR 154/189 Taxman 1 (Bom). Counsel for the revenue is unable

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

2 to section 263 of the Act without referring the same referring the same in the show cause notice issue the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act, which is in violation of principle of natural justice. , which is in violation of principle of natural justice. , which is in violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel

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

127 (Mad), has clearly held that the amendment to provision of section 54F is effective from April 1,2015, which makes it clear that benefit of section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the amendment it was clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units. Since tile issue is squarely covered

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

2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of carry forward of longterm capital loss of Rs.8,37,59,368/- arising on sale of listed company shares on which STT was paid with the long term capital gain arising there from is exempt

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)

2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: “I. a.) The Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provision of section 50(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, thereby assessing long term capital gain at Rs.25,63,834/- on sale of residential house in place of Rs.Nil returned by the appellant, (after claiming exemption u/s.540 of the Income

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

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

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

2,57,00,000 Indexed cost of flat including stamp duty and 12145538 registration and indexed cost of improvement as tabulated above in para 6 Additional Indexed cost of interest allowable 1357752 1,35,03,290 Long Term Capital Gain 1,21,96,710 The revised capital gain was now recomputed at Rs.1,21,96,710 instead of Rs.99

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

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14 2,48,38,080 429,223 2,52,67,303 2014 – 15 2

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain (in Rupees) 2010 – 11 78,96,470 203,727 198,000 82,98,197 2011 – 12 87,34,940 215,107 89,50,047 2012 – 13 2,15,71,430 227,625 2,17,99,055 2013 – 14 2,48,38,080 429,223 2,52,67,303 2014 – 15 2