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

145/- was held by the Assessing Officer as not was held by the Assessing Officer as not was held by the Assessing Officer as not recorded in the books of accounts recorded in the books of accounts and assessed as and assessed as unexplained investment within the meaning of section 69B of the Act. investment within the meaning of section

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

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

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 of the capital asset into stock-in-trade by not fully allowing the costs capitalized in the books of account and used in the working of indexed cost of acquisition. In particular, he did not allow proportionate indexed cost

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

M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, CIRCLE-(LTU)-2, , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year ssessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

capital gain and was not on computation of income from business or profession. computation of income from business or profession. 4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of 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

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

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

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

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

145 of the Act mandating following of cash or mercantile system of accounting is not applicable in the appellant's case, which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder. (iv) CIT(A) erred in observing that: a) there is no provision in the Income

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

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

gain, arising on conversion of said liability at\nclosing rate should be recognized in profit and loss account for\nreporting period - Held, yes\nII. Section 43A of the exchange, change in to section 43A by\namendatory and not clarificatory - Held, yes\nWhether under\nunamended section 43A, 'actual payment' was not a condition\nprecedent for making necessary adjustment in carrying cost

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

gain, arising on conversion of said liability at\nclosing rate should be recognized in profit and loss account for\nreporting period - Held, yes\nII. Section 43A of the exchange, change in to Section 43A by\namendatory and not clarificatory - Held, yes\nWhether under\nunamended Section 43A, 'actual payment' was not a condition\nprecedent for making necessary adjustment in carrying cost

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

2) and which applied only to individual and HUF and not to companies. 17. Further, looking from point of view of ABTL, the Department itself treated this very transaction as being on capital account and sought to tax capital gain on transfer of telecom undertaking by treating demerger as slump sale adopting revaluation of investment in Indus as consideration

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

2) and which applied only to individual and HUF and not to companies. 17. Further, looking from point of view of ABTL, the Department itself treated this very transaction as being on capital account and sought to tax capital gain on transfer of telecom undertaking by treating demerger as slump sale adopting revaluation of investment in Indus as consideration

GLORY SHIPMANAGEMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC DELHI, DELHI

Accordingly, Ground no 2 is dismissed

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3149/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Glory Shipmanagement Private Limited, 504, Abhay Steel House, 22 Baroda Street, Masjid (East), Mumbai - 400009 [PAN: AACCG2684H] ...... Appellant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Centralized Processing Centre, Delhi Vs .......... .... Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Responden

gain. By Finance Act, 2018, the third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act was introduced to the statute with effect from 1-4-2019, which reads as under:- '50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than

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)

2(47) and accordingly, it was held that the same would give rise to Capital Gain or loss. He submitted that the same analogy should be applied to the case of redemption of debentures also, as the same results in extinguishment of rights in debentures. 15. The Ld A.R drew our attention to the provisions of sec.50AA