PRASHANT KOTHARI,SINGAPORE vs. CIT A (57) MUMBAI, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of\nappeal is allowed

gain on\nunlisted shares (STT not paid) of Rs.73,23,150/- at normal tax rate and the\nassessed income was determined at Rs 1,34,36,600/- accordingly.\n\n11. The assessee thereafter carried the matter in appeal before the\nlearned CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted\nthat the India-Singapore DTAA was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2017 with

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS FID EMG MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )2(3)(1), MUMBAI

150/-. In the return of\nincome the Assessee offered to tax the net Short Term Capital\nGains (STCG) of INR.2,82,24,400/- [taxable at 15% under\nSection 111A of the Act] computed in the following manner:\n\nParticulars\nAmount (In INR.)\nShort-Term Capital Gains\n[which is not subject to Securities Transaction Tax (STT) and\ntaxable

FIDELITY RUTLAND SQUARE TRUST II STRATEGIC ADVISERS EMERGING MARKETS FUND ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

150/-. In the return of\nincome the Assessee offered to tax the net Short Term Capital\nGains (STCG) of INR.2,82,24,400/- [taxable at 15% under\nSection 111A of the Act] computed in the following manner:\nParticulars\nAmount (In INR.)\nShort-Term Capital Gains\n1,77,58,894\n[which is not subject to Securities Transaction

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

capit that the interest paid to bank for acquiring capital asset would al asset would be eligible as part of cost of acquisition. be eligible as part of cost of acquisition.” Shri Narendra Gehlaut 26 ITA No. 1101/Mum/2022 6.2 On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that interest is On the contrary, the Ld. DR submitted that interest

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. SACHIN R. TENDULKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 19(3), Shri Sachin R. Tendulkar, R.No.305, 3Rd Floor, 19-A Perry Rd, बनाम/ Pirmal Chanbers, Bandra (E) Vs. Parel Mumbai-400050 Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapt4135B Revenue By Shri Ta Khan (Dr) Respondent By Shri Jitendra Jian (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 25 /01/2017

150/- which is 2.34% only, and income t Rs.8.76 cr. from 'Other Sources' constitutes 30% of the gross tot, income. (4) The total of dividend and capital gain declared by the appellant Rs.6. 16 cr., out of which dividend income from investment in shares mutual fund is Rs.4.71 cr., which is 76.49% of the total income and capital gain from

SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY ETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain 5,24,02,19,366 Taxable @ 10% Income from Other sources 1,24,38,93,370 Taxable @ 20% (Dividend income) Income from Other sources 1,90,920 Taxable @ 30% (interest from company) Total Taxable income 6,56,03,95,980 15. Assessed under section 143(3) rw.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Give due credit

A.C..I.T. CIRCLE-41(4)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AWADHNARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN SINGH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

capital gains arising fromthe Development Agreement dated 09.10.2002, constituted a finding OR direction within the meaning of section 150(1) of the Act, binding

ISC SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LLP ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

150/- exceeds Rs. 5 crores, the condition of section 47(xiiib) stands violated. Thus, the Section 47A(4) comes into play and thereby the value of assets so vested would be regarded as transfer, within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act and subjected to tax as capital gain

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

section 150 will not\napply.\nVI. FINDING OR DIRECTION. (S.149.).SEC 148 R.W.S 150:\nREOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BASED ON TRIBUNAL “FINDING\nOR DIRECTION ” IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER YEAR OR PERIOD\nBEYOND SIX YEARS – NOT VALID\nThe Hon'ble Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal which is on similar facts\nANILSURI V/S ITO [2014] 46 TAXMANN.COM 8 (MUMBAI - TRIB.)\nHASALLOWED THE APPEAL

VISHAL DUTT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

capital gains of Rs.18,61,041/- was brought to tax vide assessment orders dated 27.12.2010 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4.Aggrieved by the orders of A.O. dated 27.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 5. The assessee reiterated the submissions before

LATE PRAVINCHANDRA DWARKADAS DALAL (LEGAL HEIR HITEN PRAVINCHANDRA DALAL),MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 42(3)(1) ERSTWHILE CIRCLE 33(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, setoff of brought forward long- term capital loss ought to be allowed against the short-term capital gains computed on depreciable assets." 4. The Applicant most humbly submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal has power to admit the additional grounds

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

capital gains exceeding 1 lakh at the rate of 10% without allowing the benefit of any indexation. However, all gains up to 31st January, 2018 will be grandfathered. For example, if an equity share is purchased six months before 31st January, 2018 at 100/- and the highest 23 Ramesh Jaisinghani price quoted on 31st January, 2018 in respect of this

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs 22,20,150/-on account of Long Term Capital Gain

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

gain tax is provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 6 Amirali Akbarali Engineer 54EB, 54F and 54H as is apparent from section 45 itself. A perusal of the provisions of sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB and 54F clearly reveals that the Legislature has used the words ‘a’ and ‘any’ with reference to investment of capital gain/sale

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

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 2(14), is an expression of widest amplitude as the definition clause has re-emphasised this, by user of the words "..of any kind". Thus, any right which can be called as a "property", will be included in the definition of "capital asset". Further in the case of Dhurjati Gupta 127 TTJ 356 (Hyd), Hon‟ble Bench while dealing

ACIT-17(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 2(14), is an expression of widest amplitude as the definition clause has re-emphasised this, by user of the words "..of any kind". Thus, any right which can be called as a "property", will be included in the definition of "capital asset". Further in the case of Dhurjati Gupta 127 TTJ 356 (Hyd), Hon‟ble Bench while dealing