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

section 68 of the Act. After considering submission of the assessee considering submission of the assessee, the learned , the learned Assessing Officer concluded as under: Officer concluded as under: 16.6 All the indicators mentioned in Pa 16.6 All the indicators mentioned in Paras above, point to only one ras above, point to only one thing that the shares prices

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI NARENDRA GEHLAUT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed e appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(4), Shri Narendra Gehlaut, Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air 875, Sector – 17B, Gurgaon, India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Haryana, 122 001. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aazpg 9630 K Appellant Respondent

section 153A of the Act. During the scrutiny proceedings, the During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed Assessing Officer noticed ‘long term capital gain long term capital gain’(LTCG) of Rs.8,98,59,373/- declared by the assessee on transfer and declared by the assessee on transfer and declared by the assessee on transfer and assignment of provisional reservation

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 10(38) of the Act. The relevant details thereof are tabulated below:- Name of scrip Sale value Long term capital gain Radford Global Ltd. 39,19,667 38,19,670 (Earlier known as PS Global Ltd) Surbhi Chemicals & 92,19,378 87,19,378 Investment Ltd. Pyramid Trading & 20,14,740 19,89,740 Finance Ltd. (Now known

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

section 2(42A) of the Act which has\nbeen reproduced and discussed above. The issue of transfer of ownership is not\nthe issue to be decided here for computing the holding period. Therefore, we find\nthat application of the ratio of aforesaid judgment would not be appropriate\nhere.\n15. Thus, respectfully following the judgements of various High Courts wherein\nthis

RITA SUNIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

capital gain arising on sale of flat number 1802 as per agreement dated 10/2/2011, the ITA No.4069 & 4070/MUM/2023 Sunil Amritlal Shah & Rita Sunil Shah; A. Y.2011-12 assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 of the act for purchase of new residential flat where the date of agreement to sale of the new property is 25 July 2009 but date

SUNIL AMRITLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

capital gain arising on sale of flat number 1802 as per agreement dated 10/2/2011, the ITA No.4069 & 4070/MUM/2023 Sunil Amritlal Shah & Rita Sunil Shah; A. Y.2011-12 assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 of the act for purchase of new residential flat where the date of agreement to sale of the new property is 25 July 2009 but date

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

section 2(42A) of the Act which has been reproduced and discussed above. The issue of transfer of ownership is not the issue to be decided here for computing the holding period. Therefore, we find that application of the ratio of aforesaid judgment would not be appropriate here. 15. Thus, respectfully following the judgements of various High Courts wherein this

MILAN THEATRES P LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(3)(2), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) of the Act.\n17. The Assessing Officer further disturbed the computation of long-term capital gains on conversion

SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

145/- made by the AO. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary and income from house property and income from other sources. The assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.60,680/- on 28.03.2017 for AY. 2016-17. The case was selected for limited

LEGRAND NEDERLAND B.V.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

145 of the paper book) 9. In response to the above, the Novateur India filed a detailed submission (Page No. 147-148 of the paper book) explaining that Novateur India had accumulated loss as on the date of capital reduction and hence, there was no question of section 2(22)(d) be applied. The Page No. 8 Legrand Nederland

KHUSHAAL C. THACKERSEY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Capital gains as mentioned in sec.45 of the Act. 16. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the NCDs are debt instruments and issuing of debentures is one of the ways of borrowing money either from market or through private placement. In the present case, the NCDs have been issued initially by HSWML to the banks in settlement

RAOUL S. THACKERSEY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Capital gains as mentioned in sec.45 of the Act. 16. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the NCDs are debt instruments and issuing of debentures is one of the ways of borrowing money either from market or through private placement. In the present case, the NCDs have been issued initially by HSWML to the banks in settlement

DY. CIT CENT CIR -6(2) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURENDRA B.JIWRAJKA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Sections 11, 11(4), and 11B of the SEBI Act, hereby revoke the Confirmatory Orders dated October 12, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 qua aforesaid 82 entities (paragraph 9 above) with immediate effect. 12. The revocation of the directions issued vide the abovementioned orders (at paragraph 11) is only in respect of the entities mentioned at paragraph

DY. CITCENT. CIR -6(2) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURENDRA B.JIWRAJKA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Sections 11, 11(4), and 11B of the SEBI Act, hereby revoke the Confirmatory Orders dated October 12, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 qua aforesaid 82 entities (paragraph 9 above) with immediate effect. 12. The revocation of the directions issued vide the abovementioned orders (at paragraph 11) is only in respect of the entities mentioned at paragraph

DY C.I.T.CENTRAL CIR-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURENDRA B.JIWRAJKA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Sections 11, 11(4), and 11B of the SEBI Act, hereby revoke the Confirmatory Orders dated October 12, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 qua aforesaid 82 entities (paragraph 9 above) with immediate effect. 12. The revocation of the directions issued vide the abovementioned orders (at paragraph 11) is only in respect of the entities mentioned at paragraph

DY. CIT CENT CIR -6(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURENDRA B. JIWRAJKA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Sections 11, 11(4), and 11B of the SEBI Act, hereby revoke the Confirmatory Orders dated October 12, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 26, 2016 qua aforesaid 82 entities (paragraph 9 above) with immediate effect. 12. The revocation of the directions issued vide the abovementioned orders (at paragraph 11) is only in respect of the entities mentioned at paragraph

RAOUL THACKERSEY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

Capital gains as mentioned in sec.45 of the Act. 16. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the NCDs are debt instruments and issuing of debentures is one of the ways of borrowing money either from market or through private placement. In the present case, the NCDs have been issued initially by HSWML to the banks in settlement

SELINA N. SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Selina N. Sheth Ito, Ward – 17(3)(1), M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400020. 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aabps9851L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Capital Gains” in respect of the surrendered insurance policy. 6. Both the lower authorities erred in taxing the surrender proceeds from the insurance policy under the head “Income from Other Sources’. 7. Without prejudice to the ground nos. 1 to 6 above, if the surrender proceeds of the insurance policy are to be taxed under the head “income from Other

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejitendra Udaylal Jain V. National Faceless Assessment Centre(Nfac) C/O. M/S. Alankar Jewellers Shop Delhi No.1 Municipal Building R.A. Kidwai Road, Wadala Mumbai- 400037 Pan: Aabpj5480E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

145/- each per share. 11. Ld.AR of the assessee objected to the addition made by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. He submitted that in Assessment year i.e. A.Y.2012-13, Assessee sold shares and booked the Short Term capital gain. (Page No. 11-22 of paper book) Summary is given