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

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

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

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

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

capital gain and other sources, ultimately vide assessment order dated March 31, 2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act, made various additions including the addition of Rs.6,81,11,103/- on account of brokerage income and added the same to the total income of the Assessee by concluding as under:\n\n\"08. Brokerage

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

6. Assessing Officer issued summons under section 131 of the IT Act to the assessee and the statement of the assessee was recorded under oath on 05.12.2017. Assessing Officer in his order from Page No. 3 to 17 has elaborately analysed various parameters with regard to claim of Bogus long term capital gain such as offline purchase of non-listed

BAY CAPITAL INDIA FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AIR INDIA, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

6. The Appellant crave leave to add, amend and/ or alter any ground of appeal before final disposal of the appeal.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee, Bay Capital India Fund Ltd is incorporated under the laws of Mauritius and is a tax resident of Mauritius. The assessee is registered with the Securities and Exchange Board

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

133(6) of the Act were returned unserved with remarks unknown/left. Accordingly, the AO treated the share transaction by the assessee as bogus and added the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,67,07,353, to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The AO further made an addition on account

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

133(6) of the Act were returned unserved with remarks unknown/left. Accordingly, the AO treated the share transaction by the assessee as bogus and added the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,67,07,353, to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The AO further made an addition on account

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

133(6) of the Act were returned unserved with remarks unknown/left. Accordingly, the AO treated the share transaction by the assessee as bogus and added the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,67,07,353, to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The AO further made an addition on account

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

133(6) of the Act were returned unserved with remarks unknown/left. Accordingly, the AO treated the share transaction by the assessee as bogus and added the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,67,07,353, to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The AO further made an addition on account

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

133(6) of the Act were returned unserved with remarks unknown/left. Accordingly, the AO treated the share transaction by the assessee as bogus and added the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,67,07,353, to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The AO further made an addition on account