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 54F of 1961 Act of the amount which was actually paid towards acquisition

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

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

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

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)

2) Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under section 48 to in respect of any short-term capital asset is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against the income, if any, as arrived at under a similar computation made for the assessment year in respect

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

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

2) As per section 74(1)(a), the brought forward short term capital loss can be set off against income under the head" capital gains" assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset. Thus, the Legislature has given a choice to the assessee to set off the brought forward short term capital loss against the gains

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

2. Common grievance of assessee in all the years pertains to treatment of gains arising out of sale of shares, whether short term capital gains or business profit. 3. At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the tribunal for the assessment year 2006-2007 dated 21/02/2014 in assessee’s own case wherein Tribunal observed as under

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

2. Common grievance of assessee in all the years pertains to treatment of gains arising out of sale of shares, whether short term capital gains or business profit. 3. At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the tribunal for the assessment year 2006-2007 dated 21/02/2014 in assessee’s own case wherein Tribunal observed as under

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

2. Common grievance of assessee in all the years pertains to treatment of gains arising out of sale of shares, whether short term capital gains or business profit. 3. At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the tribunal for the assessment year 2006-2007 dated 21/02/2014 in assessee’s own case wherein Tribunal observed as under

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

2. Common grievance of assessee in all the years pertains to treatment of gains arising out of sale of shares, whether short term capital gains or business profit. 3. At the outset, learned AR placed on record the order of the tribunal for the assessment year 2006-2007 dated 21/02/2014 in assessee’s own case wherein Tribunal observed as under

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

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

145 and it does not apply to revaluation of fixed assets or investments. The proceeds by way of sale of an investment not being income, they are not liable to tax under section 115J unless there is a clear intendment. It is well recognized that there cannot be a charge by implication. The non obstante clause with which this section

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

145 and it does not apply to revaluation of fixed assets or investments. The proceeds by way of sale of an investment not being income, they are not liable to tax under section 115J unless there is a clear intendment. It is well recognized that there cannot be a charge by implication. The non obstante clause with which this section

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

gains and business of supply of goods and services is not exempt to the extent provided in section 10(20) of the |. T. Act. While deciding the issue the decision delivered in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation vs. CIT 1996 (219 ITR 515) (SC) and CIT vs. U.P. Forest Corporation (1998) 230 ITR 945 (SC) were followed