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

IQBAL AHMED KHALILAMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

capital accounts were submitted before learned CIT(A). It was submitted that although A.O failed to verify the purchases as notices u/s133(6) returned unserved and purchase parties could not be traced but sales were accepted by the A.O and there cannot be sales unless the purchases have been made by the assessee. The assessee relied upon the various case

IQBAL AHMAED KHALIL AHMED SUBEDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

capital accounts were submitted before learned CIT(A). It was submitted that although A.O failed to verify the purchases as notices u/s133(6) returned unserved and purchase parties could not be traced but sales were accepted by the A.O and there cannot be sales unless the purchases have been made by the assessee. The assessee relied upon the various case

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

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)

3) where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under section 48 to 55 in respect of any capital asset (other than a 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

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. 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

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. 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

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

3) Thus, the assessee was correct in setting off the brought forward short term capital loss against short term capital gain taxable @ 30% and not 10%. Action Financial Services India Ltd., ITA no.1823/Mum./2012 4) Dy. CIT v. Noble Enclave & Towers (P) Ltd. (2012) 50 SOT 5 (Kol.)(Trib.) (13)(Para 23) Assessee can adopt method which is most beneficial

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

3 and 4 of the PB) 19. Mr. Mansukhani has taken all necessary legal action such as selection of appropriate lawyers, preparation of documents/ petitions, etc. to fight a protracted legal battle to secure eviction and possession of the land, or in the alternative, to secure acquisition of the land. Entire expenditure incurred in the process of litigation before

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3 had already been considered and disposed off in assessee’s favor vide assesses appeal in ITA No. 2270/Mum/2016. Those findings are applicable here also mutatis mutandis hence no separate adjudication required here. 34. Ground no. 5 and 6 are general in nature hence no adjudication is required 35. Ground no. 1 pertains to ‘. "Whether on the facts

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

3. Facts relating to the addition of Rs. 1.51 crores relating to sale value of shares of alleged penny stocks are stated in brief. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has disclosed long term capital gains of Rs. 1.45 crores arising out of sale of shares and claimed the same as exempt under

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

3 and clause 8 of the LOI states that the\namendment in the sanctioned layout is only to ensure optimal use of the space or\nif specifically required by any relevant authorities (including the MCGM).\nFurther, it is also stated that the developer shall ensure that even where the\nnumber of floors in the building are increased, there

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

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

capital receipt. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the income of the Assessee accordingly. In terms of the aforesaid Additional Ground No. 2 to 2.1 raised by the Assessee are allowed. Assessment Years: 2006-2007 14. Additional Ground No. 3. “3.1 On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in treating

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