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

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

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

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

VINAY ARUN JOSHI,THANE vs. PCIT CENTRAL MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain, the AO could not have acquire any jurisdiction to\ndisallow such indexed cost of acquisition and having not done that the AO\nhas not made mistake in the instant case and the order so passed cannot\nbe held as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.\nIt was further submitted that where

AVANA GLOBAL FZCO,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144A;(ii)an order\nmade by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the\nperformance of the functions of an Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders\nor directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or\nChief Commissioner

MR. ABHIJEET SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-16(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleabhijeet Soni V. Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(1) Room No. 441 C/O- M/S. Jayesh Sangharajka & Co.Llp 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre Aayakar Bhavan Ds Phalke Road Mumbai - 400020 Dadar (E), Mumbai - 400014 Pan: Aadps8454R (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains and income from other sources. Vide letter dated 05.12.2014 the assessee filed a petition u/s. 144A of the Act with the Joint CIT 16(2), Mumbai and Ld. JCIT passed the order u/s. 144A of the Act directing the Assessing Officer to dispose off the petitions filed by the assessee by way of speaking order before proceeding

IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,MUMBAI, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-5, AYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144A;(ii)an order\nmade by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the\nperformance of the functions of an Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders\nor directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or\nChief Commissioner

BANK OF BARODA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

144A of the Act\nrow Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. We find that assessee had voluntarily disallowed\nthe sum of Rs.7,94,39,436/ under Rule 8D(2) (ii) of the Rules considering the\ninvestments which had yielded exempt income. We find that the Id CIT(A) on\nappreciating the fact that assessee has flooded with sufficient

ACIT CIR 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BANK OF BARODA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaacb 1534 F V/S Acit, 2(1)(1), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1), Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400020. V/S Bank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra ……………. Respondent Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacb 1534 F

144A of the Act row Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. We find that assessee had voluntarily disallowed the sum of Rs.7,94,39,436/ under Rule 8D(2) (ii) of the Rules considering the investments which had yielded exempt income. We find that the Id CIT(A) on appreciating the fact that assessee has flooded with sufficient

DCIT-7(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

144A, 1st floor,\nAayakar Bhawan,\nMumbai-400020.\nAppellant\nVs.\nGoldman Sachs (India) Securities\nPvt. Ltd.,\n951 A, Rational House,\nAppasaheb Marathe Marge,\nPrabhadevi,\nMumbai-400025.\nPAN NO. AAFCA 6819 F\nRespondent\nAssessee by\n: Mr. Fenil Bhatt\nRevenue by\n: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing\n: 14/08/2025\nDate of pronouncement : 09/09/2025\nORDER\nPER OM PRAKASH KANT