ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD DIST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 144C (5) of the act issued by the dispute resolution panel – one, Mumbai dated 11/9/2023 wherein the income of the assessee returned of ₹ 1,315,354,310/– is assessed at ₹ 1,342,831,140/–. The only issue in this appeal is that assessee has earned short- 032. term capital gain

ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD ACC,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 144C (5) of the act issued by the dispute resolution panel – one, Mumbai dated 11/9/2023 wherein the income of the assessee returned of ₹ 1,315,354,310/– is assessed at ₹ 1,342,831,140/–. The only issue in this appeal is that assessee has earned short- 032. term capital gain

ISHARES EMSC MAURITIUS CO ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

section 144C (5) of the act issued by the dispute resolution panel – one, Mumbai dated 11/9/2023 wherein the income of the assessee returned of ₹ 1,315,354,310/– is assessed at ₹ 1,342,831,140/–. The only issue in this appeal is that assessee has earned short- 032. term capital gain

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

section. Such assessee can invest capital gains for purchase of residential building/house to seek exemption of the capital gains tax. 2.5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in K.C. Kaushik vs. Income Tax Officer 185 ITR 499 (Bom) held as under: 8 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal “1. The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

section. Such assessee can invest capital gains for purchase of residential building/house to seek exemption of the capital gains tax. 9 Shri Shashanka Ghosh 2.5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in K.C. Kaushik vs. Income Tax Officer 185 ITR 499 (Bom) held as under: “1. The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREY GULERI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-16(1) Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri बनाम/ Room No.439, Aayakar Prime Channel Software Bhawan, 101, M.K. Road Communications P. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai 400 020 215, Kuber Complex New Link Road Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaapg4566H याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dilip V. Lakhani ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

capital gain in purchase of additional residential building. The context in which the expression, a residential house” is used in Section 54 makes it clear that, it was not the intention of the legislation to convey the meaning that: it refers to a single residential 13 Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri house, if, that was the intention, they would have used

UNIVERSAL MEDICARE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanuniversal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Capsulation Premises, Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Mumbai-400088. Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Pan: Aaacu0717B Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 268/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Dcit, Central Cricle-3(2), Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Erstwhile Asst. Capsulation Premises, Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Tax, Cc-20, Mumbai), Room Mumbai-400088. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Pan: Aaacu0717B India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistry Senior Advocate With Shri Manish Shah Advocate Respondent By : Mrs. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr)

gain which arose from transfer of capital asset, which could be brought to tax under section 45, read with section 48. 37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT AIR 1954 SC held that income may accrue to an assessee without the actual receipt of the same. If the assessee acquires a right to receive

M/S. SUMIT EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT 19(3) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

140 held that registration of a document related back to the day on which the agreement of sale was executed, hence, when the builder executed the agreement of sale on 7-8- 1993, the assessee was to he deemed to be owner of property from that dale and accordingly, the capital gain was to be worked out. The date

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

section 68.\n\nOn appeal, the Commissioner [Appeals] accepted the appeal of the assesse and deleted the addition made on account of unexplained deposits on ground that it was a genuine transaction pf purchase of shares through stock broker 'D' and also the sale thereof through \"K\" and the assesse had assessed the genuine long term capital gain

ROMIEL SAMUEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in treating the development rights along with the rights to load TDR as capital asset liable to long term 2 capital gain as against

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

gains earned by her within a very short period of time by investing\nin a penny stock whose fundamentals had no support for the premium it\ncommanded was neither the result of a coincidence nor of a genuine investment\nactivity but were created through well planned and executed scheme in which\nthe company, the brokers and the buyers and sellers

CHITRA AVDHESH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands\ndismissed

gains earned by her within a very short period of time by investing\nin a penny stock whose fundamentals had no support for the premium it\ncommanded was neither the result of a coincidence nor of a genuine investment\nactivity but were created through well planned and executed scheme in which\nthe company, the brokers and the buyers and sellers

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

capital gain i.e. from the date of first payment in the FY 2006-07 or from the date of possession given on 16.12.2010. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the ground no. 2 to 4 jointly on merit which are the main grounds of the appeal. 9. We have heard the Ld. AR and Ld. DR and examined the record

SARITA SUNIL MANTRI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarita Sunil Mantri, Ito-7(2)(1), Flat 3 & 4, Kamal Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 69 Walkeshwar Road, Opp. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Gopi Birla School, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adxpm 8070 E Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

140/- on estimating the fair rent on flat no. 1606 and on estimating the fair rent on flat no. 1606 and 305 @ 7% of cost of property; 305 @ 7% of cost of property; 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that

DCIT - 19(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI vs. DISHANT DEEPAK SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

section 68 was unjustified. The relevant part of the judgment is 68 was unjustified. The relevant part of the judgment is 68 was unjustified. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under reproduced as under - “22 22. We note that all evidences of sales including l evidences of sales including contract noteswere submitted by the assessee, contract noteswere

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

140 of the Act, she has given the detail reasons to show that the order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable. On the issue of each of the ground, it was submitted as under:- i. On irregular allowance of long term capital loss it was submitted that by letter dated 26th February, 2018, the learned Assessing Officer

JITEN K. AJMERA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE KISHORE H. AJMERA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

140 30,59,670 9,45,438 AJMERA 7C 1144/MU -13 M/2020 3 ASHISH AABPA907 ITA 2012 19,45,270 82,43,260 62,97,992 19,46,080 AJMERA 5G 1135/MU -13 M/2020 -13 S U RE M/2020 LTD 5 IFSL AABCI468 ITA 2012 17,64,580 50,73,106 33,08,526 10,22,335 5 1109/MU

AVANI J AJMERA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

140 30,59,670 9,45,438 AJMERA 7C 1144/MU -13 M/2020 3 ASHISH AABPA907 ITA 2012 19,45,270 82,43,260 62,97,992 19,46,080 AJMERA 5G 1135/MU -13 M/2020 -13 S U RE M/2020 LTD 5 IFSL AABCI468 ITA 2012 17,64,580 50,73,106 33,08,526 10,22,335 5 1109/MU