VIPUL MODI,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-CIRCLE-8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain in the hands of the assessee’s wife resulting from sale of shares of ICVL Chemical Ltd. of Rs.1,96,92,824/- as genuine under similar facts. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the order of Mrs. Leena Modi was passed after seeking direction under section 144A

MRS SUNITA SHYAM MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain. The assessment U/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 was completed merely on the basis of change of opinion. In view of the above, the said order passed should be squashed as the reopening of the assessment is not justified and bad in law. and necessary direction should be given in this regard

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHENDRA RAVJI CHHEDA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

section 144A\nto the Deputy Commissioner seeking his opinion regarding\ntaxability of amount received by assessee. The Deputy\nCommissioner gave directions to Assessing Officer to the effect\nthat said receipt of damages was not taxable in the hands of the\nappellant neither as business income nor as capital gains

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAMESH RAVJI CHHEDA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

section 144A\nto the Deputy Commissioner seeking his opinion regarding\ntaxability of amount received by assessee. The Deputy\nCommissioner gave directions to Assessing Officer to the effect\nthat said receipt of damages was not taxable in the hands of the\nappellant neither as business income nor as capital gains

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RASIK KUNVERJI CHHEDA, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

section 144A\nto the Deputy Commissioner seeking his opinion regarding\ntaxability of amount received by assessee. The Deputy\nCommissioner gave directions to Assessing Officer to the effect\nthat said receipt of damages was not taxable in the hands of the\nappellant neither as business income nor as capital gains

SHALINI SEEKOND,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3877/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Mrs. Shalini Seekond Income Tax Officer - बनाम/ 6/15, Shyam Niwas, 3(3)(2), Aayakar Bhawan V. Bhulabhai Desai Road, M K Road Mumbai-400026 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Anhps1305D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

144A of the Act to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax 3(3), Mumbai but however, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax 3(3), Mumbai directed that the income from sale of immovable property situated in Sri-Lanka be taxed as Long Term Capital Gains . The AO , thus, vide assessment orders dated 30-12-2009 passed

VIRENDRA BHAVANJI GALA,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 144A to the Deputy Commissioner seeking his opinion regarding taxability of amount received by assessee. The Deputy Commissioner gave directions to Assessing Officer to the effect that said receipt of damages was not taxable in the hands of the appellant neither as business income nor as capital gains

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KAUSHAL YASHWANT AGARWAL, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 144A to the Deputy Commissioner, seeking his opinion regarding taxability of amount received by assessee. The Deputy Commissioner gave directions to Assessing Officer to the effect that said receipt was not taxable in the hands of the appellant neither as business income nor as capital gains

NAGJI KESHAVJI RITA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

gain on sale of the shares of Inventure Growth & Securities Ltd constitute one of the items of increase in share capital of the assessee which was one of the issues for examination under the limited scrutiny. Hence, we reject the contention of the assessee , that the issue of sale of penny stock orsale of shares of Inventure Growth & Securities

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,VILE PARLE vs. ACIT, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrianikesh Banerjee, Jm A.Y.2013-14 Ashok Kumar Pandey, Acit, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.37, Kautaliaya Bhavan, Kavita, Vithal Nagar, Income Tax Department, Vs. Chs, Ltd., Vithal Nagar, N.S. Road No.11 J.V.P.D. Scheme, Vile Parle.

Section 144A on 18.02.2016 wherein the learned Joint Commissioner after calling report from the Assessing Officer held as under: (i) The assessee is a Managing Director of the Company and is actively participating in the affairs of the company. (ii) Assessee has made investment in mutual funds and also shares in India deriving dividend and capital gains

LALITADEVI GIRIRAJ KISHORE MALPANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

144A of the Act, vide Assessment Order, treated the capital gain of Rs. 11,98,813/- earned from the said property, as Short Term Capital Gain, and 6 added the same in the income of the assessee, by passing the assessment order. 9. The assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said addition of disallowance by filing first appeal before

MAHENDRA KAPADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

section 143(3) of the Act date of order31/03/2016. 2 Mahendra Kpadia, Mumbai 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: - “1. On facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by Ld AO in taxing the Long Term Capital Gains on sale of inherited agricultural lands as Business Income

AJAY INDRAJIT THAKORE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 11(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gain arising out of tenancy right. The Assessing Officer did not find merit in either of the submissions made by the assessee. Relying upon the order passed under section 144A

BHAGWATI RAJARAM CHANDORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 18(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhagwati Rajaram Chandora, Room No.30, 3Rd Floor, Ganesh Bhuwan, 80 Ramwadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400002 ............... Appellant Pan : Aecpc8718H V/S Ito, Ward – 18(1)(2), Mumbai - 400002 ……………… Respondent

144A. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in making additions by treating Notional Cash Commission of Rs. 1,86,489/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that there was no evidence of payment of commission in Cash and that the Appellant

SHRI NITIN KUMAR DIDWANIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , CENTRAL-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

capital gain and not the amount of sale consideration. 9. Before us, the solitary contention of the Ld. A.R is that as both the aforesaid issues in question, had been considered and decided by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 25.01.2019, therefore, the Pr.CIT was divested of his jurisdiction to revise the order passed

SMT. NITI NITIN KUMAR DIDWANIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , CENTRAL-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

capital gain and not the amount of sale consideration. 9. Before us, the solitary contention of the Ld. A.R is that as both the aforesaid issues in question, had been considered and decided by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 25.01.2019, therefore, the Pr.CIT was divested of his jurisdiction to revise the order passed

SHRI NITIN KUMAR DIDWANIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , CENTRAL-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

capital gain and not the amount of sale consideration. 9. Before us, the solitary contention of the Ld. A.R is that as both the aforesaid issues in question, had been considered and decided by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 25.01.2019, therefore, the Pr.CIT was divested of his jurisdiction to revise the order passed

SMT. NITI NITINKUMAR DIDWANIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, EMTRA; - 3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

capital gain and not the amount of sale consideration. 9. Before us, the solitary contention of the Ld. A.R is that as both the aforesaid issues in question, had been considered and decided by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 25.01.2019, therefore, the Pr.CIT was divested of his jurisdiction to revise the order passed

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPLANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Capital gain" or "income from other sources" or in Section 199 or in Section 28 to 43B. It does not override the provisions of Chapter III of which Section 10(34) is a part. (iv) The learned CIT (A) failed to the take note of the settled position of law that income is to be computed as per the applicable