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

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

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

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

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

3,597,395/–. This order is under challenge before us. 013. The only dispute in this appeal is that from 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

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

3,597,395/–. This order is under challenge before us. 013. The only dispute in this appeal is that from 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

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

3 years and even the occupancy certificate were also issued on 25.01.2016 and the registration was done almost after 2 years i.e. on 14.12.2017. In such facts the date of registration i.e. 14.12.2017 cannot be held as the date on which the assessee has acquired the Braj Kishore Singh immovable asset or the right because that right was already

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

3 Legrand Nederland B.V. before the Assessing Officer that the capital gain arising on cancellation of shares pursuant to the capital reduction undertaken by Novateur India is not taxable in India in view of Article 13(5) of the India - Netherlands tax treaty (hereinafter referred as "the tax treaty"). 5. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer considered the issue

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

capital receipt. The Assessing Officer is\ndirected to recompute the income of the Assessee accordingly. In\nterms of the aforesaid Additional Ground No. 2 to 2.1 raised by the\nAssessee are allowed.\n14.\nAdditional Ground No. 3.\n“3.1 On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned AO erred in treating Education cess

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

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Act.We have perused the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in that case it was stated, during the assessment proceeding, the assessing officer noted that as per material available on record, the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai Zone (DGCEI) had carried out investigation in respect of certain auto dealers and intermediaries. In course

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)

3 Khushaal C. Thackersey 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) held that the redemption of NCDs would not give rise to Long term capital gains as claimed by the assessee and further held that the difference between the maturity proceeds upon redemption of NCDs and the cost is to be assessed as interest income of the assessee

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)

3 Raoul S. Thackersey 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) held that the redemption of NCDs would not give rise to Long term capital gains as claimed by the assessee and further held that the difference between the maturity proceeds upon redemption of NCDs and the cost is to be assessed as interest income of the assessee

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