ISHARES EMSC MAURITIUS CO ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

capital gain is ₹ 859,680 in the computation seat however the learned assessing officer has computed it at ₹ 791,221/–. Assessee has filed an application under section 154

ISHARES MSCI EM IMI ESG SCREENED UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

capital gain is ₹ 859,680 in the computation seat however the learned assessing officer has computed it at ₹ 791,221/–. Assessee has filed an application under section 154

ISHARES MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD ACC,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

capital gain is ₹ 859,680 in the computation seat however the learned assessing officer has computed it at ₹ 791,221/–. Assessee has filed an application under section 154

J P TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX IT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gain taxable at normal rate, which is not permissible. Further, the issue is debatable and cannot be rectified u/s 154 of the IT Act as it is not apparent from record. In view of these facts and circumstances, the ground of appeal is fit to be dismissed.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that section

ITO 25(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. KIRIT RAOJIBHAI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

capital gain at rupees nil. 010. Assessee challenged the order of the learned CIT – A passed u/s 154 of the income tax act before the Kirit Raojibhai Patel; AY 07-08 coordinate bench in ITA number 6717/MU M/2010 challenging that the order passed by the learned CIT – A is beyond the scope of the provisions of Section

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

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

gain and to rebut that these are not in\nthe nature of accommodation entries.\niv. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer failed to collect and bring\non record the evidences from MrAnil B Agarwal which was later retracted\nback by him. If at all said evidences are collected, copies of same have not\nbeen provided to the respondent

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

154 the Act. 3. GROUND 3:- Validity of reference made under Section 55A of the Act a) The CIT (A) has erred in confirming the reference made by AO under Section 55A of the Act which is bad in law being without authority. b) Without prejudice to the above, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming a reference made

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

SURESH K JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA SURESH JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

capital gains according to the period of holding as per the provisions of law for these assessment years also. 10. In view of our above discussion, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. ITA No.4366/M/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Assessee’s appeal) 11. The assessee, in this appeal, has agitated the action of the lower authorities in making

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

capital gains from those scrips. He noted that the assessee has demanded cross verification at this juncture is nothing but an evasive tactic. That the assessee has failed to comment upon the modus operandi enumerated in the show-cause notice. The Assessing Officer further observed that despite communication of the above facts the assessee has not explained the real transaction