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

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

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

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Rajasthan Petro Synthetics

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain and the tax M/s The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. M/s The Maharashtra State Co ITA Nos. 3878 & 3916/Mum/2019 thereon had to be computed thereon had to be computed. The coordinate bench of the T coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd (2014) 49 Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Rajasthan Petro Synthetics

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) read with section 147 of the act on 29/12/2017 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 25,461,230/–. 12. Assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) challenging the reopening of the assessment as well as the additions on the merits of the case, the learned CIT – A dismissed the appeal

ITO-28.3.1, NAVI MUMBAI vs. SEEMA NARENDRA BAPNA, NERUL

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

3) read with section 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961 by an assessment order dated 29/12/2017. 9. Assessee challenged the assessment order before the National faceless appeal Centre Delhi wherein the learned CIT – A deleted the addition under section 68 of Rs. 23,652,350 and addition under section 69C of Rs. 1,182,617/– as per paragraph number

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-41(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-41(2)(1), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, 111, Marathon Max Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mulund Goregoan Link Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in ITA No. 6557/M/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 in Tribunal in ITA No. 6557/M/2019 for assessment year 2015 Tribunal in ITA No. 6557/M/2019

DSV AIR & SEA PVT. LTD (SUCESSSOR TO PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

gain on foreign exchange fluctuation", "provision for bad debts written back and miscellaneous income as non- operating in nature for the purpose of computing the operating margin of the Appellant, without ITA No.796/M/202 4 M/s. DSV Air & Sea Pvt. Ltd. [Successor to Panalpina World Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.] appreciating that the same are operating in nature and related

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

153 A of the act. Therefore, claim of assessee about absence of incriminating material is false. d) He completely read the statement of assessee, Mr. Bhatt, Mr. Kalpesh, Mr. Piyush and also referred to several documents found from Mr. Bhatt, which clearly proves according to him that claim of long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

153 A of the act. Therefore, claim of assessee about absence of incriminating material is false. d) He completely read the statement of assessee, Mr. Bhatt, Mr. Kalpesh, Mr. Piyush and also referred to several documents found from Mr. Bhatt, which clearly proves according to him that claim of long-term capital gain of the assessee, is false. He submits