M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

SKF INIDA LTD( SINCE MAY 19 2004 NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM SKF BEARING INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

section 50 is to be restricted only to the method of computing the capital gain and not for determining the nature of capital assets. " . The fact that assessee has disclosed the facts and legal position along with the computation of total income is also recognized by the assessing officer at Para 7 of the assessment order dated December

SKF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(3)4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

section 50 is to be restricted only to the method of computing the capital gain and not for determining the nature of capital assets. " . The fact that assessee has disclosed the facts and legal position along with the computation of total income is also recognized by the assessing officer at Para 7 of the assessment order dated December

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

capital gain against one of the houses but held the claim not to be admissible against second house. However, the CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee relying upon decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in D. Anand Basapa Vs. ITO (2004) 91 ITD 53. The said view has been reversed by the Tribunal as follows

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

capital gain against one of the houses but held the claim not to be admissible against second house. However, the CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee relying upon decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in D. Anand Basapa Vs. ITO (2004) 91 ITD 53. The said view has been reversed by the Tribunal as follows

DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

Gains of Rs. 23,11,153/- which is taxable under the provision of section 48 to 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 8,37,59,368/- which do not form part of total income as envisaged in the provision of section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iii) Whether

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

capital gain on sale of shares cannot be treated as bogus. In this regard learned Counsel of the assessee has relied upon following case laws :- • Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal Vs. DCIT (ITA no. 3427 to 3429/Mum/2019 dated 1.10.2019 • CIT Vs. Shyam R. Pawar (229 Taxman 256) • Farrah Marker Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 dated 27.4.2018) • GTC Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

capital gain on sale of shares cannot be treated as bogus. In this regard learned Counsel of the assessee has relied upon following case laws :- • Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal Vs. DCIT (ITA no. 3427 to 3429/Mum/2019 dated 1.10.2019 • CIT Vs. Shyam R. Pawar (229 Taxman 256) • Farrah Marker Vs. ITO (ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 dated 27.4.2018) • GTC Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT

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

Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, Mumbai, Nilufer Income in 1961 - Capital gains - Profit on sale case of V. Sayed Tax of property used for residence Officer- 25(3)(5), Mumbai. (Residential house - Position prior (Copy enclosed of in Order to1-4-2015) - Assessment year Paper book Page No. 153

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

153 85,05,399 198,10,394 - - Claimed as Exempt Capital Gain 15,03,340 99,24,436 29,49,332 85,05,399 198,10,349 - - on Alleged Penny Stock Captial Gain -40,179 - - - - on other Stock 8. The details of capital gain in the case of the assessee in the various groups were as under:- M/s. Aspen International

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

153 85,05,399 198,10,394 - - Claimed as Exempt Capital Gain 15,03,340 99,24,436 29,49,332 85,05,399 198,10,349 - - on Alleged Penny Stock Captial Gain -40,179 - - - - on other Stock 8. The details of capital gain in the case of the assessee in the various groups were as under:- M/s. Aspen International

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

153 85,05,399 198,10,394 - - Claimed as Exempt Capital Gain 15,03,340 99,24,436 29,49,332 85,05,399 198,10,349 - - on Alleged Penny Stock Captial Gain -40,179 - - - - on other Stock 8. The details of capital gain in the case of the assessee in the various groups were as under:- M/s. Aspen International

JT. CIT(OSD)CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

153 85,05,399 198,10,394 - - Claimed as Exempt Capital Gain 15,03,340 99,24,436 29,49,332 85,05,399 198,10,349 - - on Alleged Penny Stock Captial Gain -40,179 - - - - on other Stock 8. The details of capital gain in the case of the assessee in the various groups were as under:- M/s. Aspen International

JT. CIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

153 85,05,399 198,10,394 - - Claimed as Exempt Capital Gain 15,03,340 99,24,436 29,49,332 85,05,399 198,10,349 - - on Alleged Penny Stock Captial Gain -40,179 - - - - on other Stock 8. The details of capital gain in the case of the assessee in the various groups were as under:- M/s. Aspen International

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)

3)(1), Mumbai V/s M/s Indravardan Jain HUF, by hon'ble ITAT Mumbai I bench. It is also noted by the bench that investigation into penny stocks cannot necessarily mean that all transactions are bogus. The nature of the transaction does not change just because there is an investigation or because it is a penny stock. viii. Further

INDIA ACORN FUND LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

153 of the Act) is time barred and liable to be quashed, Ground of Appeal No. 3: Assessment proceedings completed by the learned AO based on notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1), Delhi is invalid and liable

DCIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CEAT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

3 to section 147 of the Act to make addition on other ground if the addition on the ground stated in the reason for reopening is made. Further, mere issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is not sufficient. There should be an assessment order pursuant to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Section 153

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

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

153 taxmann.com 579 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Department against the order of High Court which held that were Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 10(38) of the Act and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were misused for providing bogus accommodation of Long Term

PRADIPKUMAR P. KANAKIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR13(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradipkumar Purshottam Dcit, Kanakia, Circle-13(2), बनाम/ C/O- Pratap Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18, Steel Yard House, Iron Mumbai-400020 Market, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400009 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Afvpk8451P

gain in purchase of additional residential building. The context in which the expression, a residential house” is used in Section 54 makes it clear that, it was not the intention of the legislation to convey the meaning that: it refers to a single residential house, if, that was the intention, they would have used the word