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

BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

145/- with capital gain account maintained with bank as stipulated u/s 54F(4) of 1961 Act, before ITA 5420/Mum/2016 10 31-07-2011 i.e. due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of 1961 Act. The CIT(A) allowed benefit of Section

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

GSB CAPITAL MARKETS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 307/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

section 74(1)(a) deals with set off of brought forward loss incurred on transfer of short-term capital asset against the capital gain’s earned during the year. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee company relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Capital International Emerging Market Fund v. DDIT(IT) (2013) 145

ACTION FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 74. Capital International Emerging Markets Fund v. Dy. DIT (2013) 145 ITD 491 (Mum.)(Trib.) (497) (Para 3.2) Action Financial Services India Ltd., ITA no.1823/Mum./2012 The Tribunal held merely because two set of transactions are liable for different rate of tax, it cannot be said that income from these transactions does not arise from similar computation, particularly when

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

Section 14A by excluding the amount blocked in shares meant for trading purpose. We direct accordingly. 6. In the Assessment year 2009-2010 revenue is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) for treating profits of sales of shares held for more than 12 months as long term capital gains instead of business income. The precise observation

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI vs. MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

Section 14A by excluding the amount blocked in shares meant for trading purpose. We direct accordingly. 6. In the Assessment year 2009-2010 revenue is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) for treating profits of sales of shares held for more than 12 months as long term capital gains instead of business income. The precise observation

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

Section 14A by excluding the amount blocked in shares meant for trading purpose. We direct accordingly. 6. In the Assessment year 2009-2010 revenue is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) for treating profits of sales of shares held for more than 12 months as long term capital gains instead of business income. The precise observation

MOHAN KAPOORCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed in part where as appeal of revenue in assessment 2009-2010 is dismissed

Section 14A by excluding the amount blocked in shares meant for trading purpose. We direct accordingly. 6. In the Assessment year 2009-2010 revenue is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) for treating profits of sales of shares held for more than 12 months as long term capital gains instead of business income. The precise observation

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Capital gains", of such other person. ][Emphasis supplied] 56. Income from other sources (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub- section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely:- (viii) income by way of interest received on compensation or on enhanced compensation referred

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Capital gains", of such other person. ][Emphasis supplied] 19 ITA No. 2270 & 3286 Mum 2016-Leila Advani 56. Income from other sources (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub- section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely:- (viii) income

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

GREAVES COTTON LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GREAVES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklaita

145 Petrol Engine Unit, Thoraipakkam 6,716 16,861 8 Greaves Cotton Ltd. (formerly Greaves Ltd) 6. Contribution to Superannuation fund 6,232 (not recognized) Petrol Engine Unit,Thoraipakkam ------------------ Total 1,70,218/- __________ According to the AO, none of the above funds was covered u/s 36(1)(iv) or section 36(1)(v) and there being nothing to show that

ASST CIT CIR 11(5) vs. JSW STEEL LTD,

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

gains was not intended to be restricted. Subsequently also when that section was replaced by section 115J, the object was to introduce the provision whereby every company will have to pay a minimum corporate tax on the profits declared by it in its own accounts. These profits can only be those which are assessable as income under

JSW STEEL LTD vs. ASST CIT CIR 11(5),

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05

gains was not intended to be restricted. Subsequently also when that section was replaced by section 115J, the object was to introduce the provision whereby every company will have to pay a minimum corporate tax on the profits declared by it in its own accounts. These profits can only be those which are assessable as income under

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