RARE INVESTMENTS,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) - 28 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Rare Investments Vs. The Commissioner Of 151, Nariman Point Income Tax (28), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 R.No.114, Aaykar Bhavan Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aahfr8059H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

151, Nariman Point Income Tax (28), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 R.No.114, Aaykar Bhavan Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AAHFR8059H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N Pawar Revenue by Shri D.G. Pansari Date of Hearing 03/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement 11/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. NETWORTH STOCK BROKING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

gains in terms of Section 48 & 49 of the Act. Accordingly, we partly reverse the order of CIT(A) and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal whereas the issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 21. The next issue in assessee’s ITA No. 2288/Mum/2012 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action

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

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

151/-. The Long term capital gain under the PMS is recorded on sale of mutual funds and debentures/ funds only. Besides, the PMS, there is LTCG from direct investment made by the appellant to the extent of Rs.17,17,977/- and under the head of mutual fund, it is Rs.34,686/- only. Overall, there is a loss of Rs.81

PURSE HOLDINGS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

capital gain”. In a nutshell, he strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A). As regards, the approval of notice under section 148 by Addl. CIT/DIT, he submitted that under the Income Tax Act, Jt. Commissioner and Addl. Commissioner are inter-changeable authorities and they cannot be reckoned as two different hierarchies or authorities. This is clarified

PRAFUL CHANDARIA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT )IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

capital gain”. In a nutshell, he strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A). As regards, the approval of notice under section 148 by Addl. CIT/DIT, he submitted that under the Income Tax Act, Jt. Commissioner and Addl. Commissioner are inter-changeable authorities and they cannot be reckoned as two different hierarchies or authorities. This is clarified

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

ACIT CIR. 12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

2 of First Schedule to the Act and that the said provision overrides other computational provisions such as capital gains , income from house property etc including provisions of section 28 to 43B dealing with computation of income under the head „ profits and gains of business or profession‟. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate bench

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

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