UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

gain. The expression \"capital asset\" is defined in\nsection 2 (14) to mean \"property of any kind held by an assessee\".\nIt is of the widest amplitude, and apparently covers all kinds of\nproperty except the property expressly excluded by clauses (i) to\n(iv)of the sub-section which, it will be seen, does not include good\nwill

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

gain. The expression \"capital asset\" is defined in\nsection 2 (14) to mean \"property of any kind held by an assessee\".\nIt is of the widest amplitude, and apparently covers all kinds of\nproperty except the property expressly excluded by clauses (i) to\n(iv)of the sub-section which, it will be seen, does not include good\nwill

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

capital gains tax, only if the investment is made in one residential house property, one can still invest in more than one house and claim the lax: exemption, provided the taxpayer can prove that all such flats are used as a single residential nit by the family, In the abovementioned case, two residential units were purchased, which were separated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the cross appeal filed by the revenue as well as\nassessee stands dismissed

capital gains on slump sale is an\nallowable deduction ignoring the fact that sub- section 2 of Section 50B\nof the I.T. Act, 1961 clearly states that the net worth of the undertaking\nor the division, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the cost of\nacquisition and the cost of improvement for the purposes of sections

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

section 147, of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Income\narising from transfer of long-term securities\n(Bogus transactions) Assessment year 2006-\n07 Assesse purchased 3000 shares of\ncompany 'T' through a stock broker These\nshares were transferred to assesses demat\naccount - However, said stock broker submitted\nbefore authorities that he was providing\naccommodation entries for taking profit

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 147, of 260 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains IN THE ITAT - Income arising from transfer of long- AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' term securities (Bogus transactions) - Pratik Suryakant Shah v. AY 2006-07 - Assesse purchased 3000 Income-tax Officer, Ward- shares of company 'T' through a stock 10 (3), Ahmedabad* broker - These shares were transferred OCTOBER

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit, Rs. 1,25,00,000/- made on account of treating unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 62,81,000/- disallowed under section 57 totally amounting to Rs. 6,46,91,500/- may kindly be deleted and the income declared by the assessee may be accepted.” 10. After considering detailed submissions

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

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

151 of the Act.\n\n2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the C.I.T (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs 22,20,150/-on account of Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the appellant.\n\n3 On the facts and circumstances

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

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

151.\n(3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served\nis a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163\nand the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in\npursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such\nnon-resident, the notice

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

capital gains of ₹106,35,11,223/- under section 10(38) of the Act. under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, however, was of Officer, however, was of the view that by virtue of section 44 of the the view that by virtue of section 44 of the Act, which is a non obstante provision, the computation

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

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

section 68 of the Act. 7.36. In light of the above discussion, it is held that the amounts credited in the books of the assessee as long-term capital gains during the year arising out of the sale of scripts M/s. Blazon Marbles Ltd. and M/s. Radford Global Ltd. remain unexplained and the AO has rightly treated the amount

CYRUS PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148...” Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Manish Financial - ITA No. 5055/Mum/2024 wherein,on the same set of facts,it was held that the notice under section 148 is invalid

DEVANSHI SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardevanshi Sharma Ito, Ward 34(1)(1) 216, 2Nd Floor, Kautaliya Bhawan, Sagar Jyoti, Plot No. 18, Vs. 6Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Cmvpk 6007 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Shashank Mehta Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.10.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Legal Issue, Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) As Also The Notice Issued U/S. 148 Of The Act. Since, The Aforesaid Issue Raised By The Assessee Is A Purely Legal & Jurisdictional Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter & Affecting The Validity Of The Proceedings Initiated U/S. 147 Of The Act, We Are Inclined To Address The Issue At The Very Outset.

Gain (‘STCG’ for short) or Short Term Capital Loss (‘STCL’ for short). Based on such information, the A.O. reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act under the old regime by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 28.04.2021. By virtue of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors v Ashish

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR, 20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AMIT SAMPATHRAJ SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

capital gain on sale consideration was not brought to tax which reasons were found to be factually incorrect. The assessee had return of income which was not noticed by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment was quashed for assumption of jurisdiction on factually incorrect premise. In the similar fact situation