SHANNO MOHAMMED YUSUF WARSI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

6 total sale consideration of ₹2,30,01,500/-, on which the assessee total sale consideration of , on which the assessee term capital gain of ₹2,06,99,474/ computed long-term capital gain of 474/-, which was claimed as exempted from income tax purpose under the provisions claimed as exempted from income tax purpose under the provisions claimed

ITO 25(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MEHUL J DHABALIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 50C of the I.T. act, 1961) 76,18,000 Indexed cost of acquisition (as claimed by the assessee) 1,80,656 Long Term Capital Gains 74,37,344 Exemption u/s 54EC for investment in Rural Electrification Bonds (As claimed by the assessee) 25,00,000 Taxable long-term-capital-gains 49,37,344 5. At the stage

ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAGDISH C. DHABALIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

section 50C of the I.T. act, 1961) 76,18,000 Indexed cost of acquisition (as claimed by the assessee) 1,80,656 Long Term Capital Gains 74,37,344 Exemption u/s 54EC for investment in Rural Electrification Bonds (As claimed by the assessee) 25,00,000 Taxable long-term-capital-gains 49,37,344 5. At the stage

SUKHPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia (International Tax) Ward 6/24, Milan Building, 1(1)(1), 87, Tardeo Road, Room No.1817A, 18 Th Vs. Opp. Tardeo A C Market, Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 034 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azupa6884D Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2024 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

6,46,567.87 is equivalent to Rs. 4,54,63,022/- ( exchange rate Rs 68.4099) would arise. Further as per section 115D (2) (a) only the second proviso to section 48 does not apply but the first proviso to section 48 applies to it, therefore assessee is also entitled to indexation benefit as per first proviso to section

NETESOFT INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

6. In this context, section 10(38) of the Act becomes relevant. As is well known, section 10 pertains to income not included in the total income. Clause (38) thereof reads as under: "10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital Now we come to the second issue of quantum of the capital gain to be taxed in the hand of the assessee gain to be taxed in the hand of the assessee, which has been raised , which has been raised by the revenue in ground No. by the revenue in ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital Now we come to the second issue of quantum of the capital gain to be taxed in the hand of the assessee gain to be taxed in the hand of the assessee, which has been raised , which has been raised by the revenue in ground No. by the revenue in ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital Now we come to the second issue of quantum of the capital gain to be taxed in the hand of the assessee gain to be taxed in the hand of the assessee, which has been raised , which has been raised by the revenue in ground No. by the revenue in ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

133,54,039 27,42,857 159,65,761 115,89,970 575,14,655 5% o’A’(B) Total (C)(A+B) 1558,41,837 1352,60,734 2804,34,825 576,00,000 3352,80,986 2433,89,364 120,78,07,747 7. The assessee company had also shown capital gains which have claimed as exempt

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

133,54,039 27,42,857 159,65,761 115,89,970 575,14,655 5% o’A’(B) Total (C)(A+B) 1558,41,837 1352,60,734 2804,34,825 576,00,000 3352,80,986 2433,89,364 120,78,07,747 7. The assessee company had also shown capital gains which have claimed as exempt

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

133,54,039 27,42,857 159,65,761 115,89,970 575,14,655 5% o’A’(B) Total (C)(A+B) 1558,41,837 1352,60,734 2804,34,825 576,00,000 3352,80,986 2433,89,364 120,78,07,747 7. The assessee company had also shown capital gains which have claimed as exempt

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

133,54,039 27,42,857 159,65,761 115,89,970 575,14,655 5% o’A’(B) Total (C)(A+B) 1558,41,837 1352,60,734 2804,34,825 576,00,000 3352,80,986 2433,89,364 120,78,07,747 7. The assessee company had also shown capital gains which have claimed as exempt

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

133,54,039 27,42,857 159,65,761 115,89,970 575,14,655 5% o’A’(B) Total (C)(A+B) 1558,41,837 1352,60,734 2804,34,825 576,00,000 3352,80,986 2433,89,364 120,78,07,747 7. The assessee company had also shown capital gains which have claimed as exempt

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. SACHIN R. TENDULKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 19(3), Shri Sachin R. Tendulkar, R.No.305, 3Rd Floor, 19-A Perry Rd, बनाम/ Pirmal Chanbers, Bandra (E) Vs. Parel Mumbai-400050 Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapt4135B Revenue By Shri Ta Khan (Dr) Respondent By Shri Jitendra Jian (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 25 /01/2017

133,174 5042312 9265237 9088949 777631 955,775 4,264,681 9,265,237 14,485,693 l 7.2. Further, the analysis of short term capital gain furnished by the appellant is as follows: Particulars PMS Direct Total Equity (STT 2270494 2405327 4675821 paid) Mutual funds 4413129 - 4413129 (STT Paid) Total 6683623 2405327 9088950 The holding period of shares under

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

133(6) of the Act was sent to Mr. Pankaj M Asher to verify the genuineness of the transaction. In response, Mr. Pankaj M Asher submitted his reply vide letter dated 13.12.2016 and confirmed the same. After considering the above, Assessing Officer after perusal of the sale deed dated 24.12.2013, he found that, the assessee received 59% of the total

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

133(6) of the Act,\nfrom the vendor of the said premises they have stated by that\nthey have not offered the same amount as capital gain as the\ntransfer was not complete for want of transfer permission from\nAamby Valley. To furtherance the claim of disallowance of\ndeduction u/s 54 of the Act, the Ld. AO relied upon

ITO-28.3.1, NAVI MUMBAI vs. SEEMA NARENDRA BAPNA, NERUL

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

section 133 (6) of the act to sarvottam advisory private limited however no reply was received. During statement recorded of Mr Lalit Jain, he/she was shown copy of the statement of Mr Rahul dated 19/6/2015 wherein it was confessed he has obtained the bogus long-term capital gain

BHAVANA LALIT JAIN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shriraj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

section 133 (6) of the act to sarvottam advisory private limited however no reply was received. During statement recorded of Mr. Lalit Jain, he/she was shown copy of the statement of Mr. Rahul dated 19/6/2015 wherein it was confessed he has obtained the bogus long-term capital gain

ACIT (PSD) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SETH INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijitdey & Shrirajesh Kumaracit (Osd)-2(3) M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Room No. 556, 5Th Floor 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2) 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Mumbai Vs. Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent

capital gain. In this context the assessee relied upon the sale deed as well as the confirmation of the buyer, i.e. M/s. Sanghvi Premises P. Ltd. in response to the notice issued under Section 133(6