PRASHANT KOTHARI,SINGAPORE vs. CIT A (57) MUMBAI, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of\nappeal is allowed

section 90 of the Act and by force of Article 13(4) of DTAA and\nsection 90(2) of the IT Act, capital gain arising to resident of Singapore is\nnot taxable in India and therefore, Article 24 was not applicable in the case\nof the appellant. To support the argument, the appellant relied upon the\ndecisions in the case

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

section 2(22B) (open-market value) or, purposively, by extending the indexation limb of then-existing Explanation (a)(iii) to the instant facts so as to avoid absurdity. A working was furnished taking ₹500 per share as 31-01-2018 FMV, yielding an aggregate long-term capital gain of ₹2,94,53,256 after selling expenses (₹4,85,13,156

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through a recognized

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through a recognized

ANAND SWARUP MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes\nin the above terms

Section 2(47) to prevent avoidance of capital gains liability by\nrecourse to transfer of rights in the manner referred to above. A person holding\nthe Power of Attorney is authorized the powers of owner, including that of\nmaking construction though the legal ownership in such cases continues to be\nwith the transferor. The intention of legislature is to treat

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

capital gain cannot be denied to the assesse. (A copy of order is placed on page no. 108 to 121) Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Manishkumar Baid Vs ACIT ITAT Kolkatta it was held that rejecting the assesse claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act is not correct. The tribunal has relied upon the judgment

PREETI CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 28(2)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

156 taxman.com 605 (Bom) has considered the facts of sale of shares and dismissed the revenue appeal as under: 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. (RFL) as long term capital gain and claimed exemption under the Act Respondent had claimed to have purchased this scrip at Rs.3.12/- per share in the year

FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

capital gains and losses and the sequence of set off adopted by it must, in our considered view, be accepted. 17. Turning to Ground numbers 6 and 7, the next issue relates to the addition of dividend income earned in respect of ADR and GDR holdings and the consequential denial of credit for tax deducted at source. The assessee

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through a recognized

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 2(47) to prevent avoidance of capital gains liability by recourse to transfer of rights in the manner referred to above. A person holding the Power of Attorney is authorized the powers of owner, including that of making construction though the legal ownership in such cases continues to be with the transferor. The intention of legislature is to treat

ANJU CHIRANIA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

156 taxman.com 605 (Bom) has considered the facts of sale of shares and dismissed the revenue appeal as under: 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. (RFL) as long term capital gain and claimed exemption under the Act Respondent had claimed to have purchased this scrip at Rs.3.12/- per share in the year

G S STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

gains being not chargeable under the Treaty), the entire brought forward long-term capital losses were carried forward without set-off. 7. The assessment was concluded by passing a draft assessment order dated 13 March 2025 under section 144C, whereby the Assessing Officer proposed to adjust/set-off brought forward capital losses of ₹156

SHALINI ANAND MURTHY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 148, the assessee, though offered additional capital additional capital gains to the extent of ₹2,02,39,9999/- out of the am gains to the extent of out of the amount remained unutilized, however, the amount of ₹81,89,121/- was not offered to unutilized, however, the amount of was not offered to tax. The main contention

DEVANG BHUPENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardevang Bhupendra Shah, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – B/9, Neminath Apt., बनाम 32(1)(4), Kautilya Bhavan, Shimpoli Road, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai – 400 092, Bandra (East), Mumbai– Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps1211L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

capital gains on shores under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer P a g e | 47 A.Y. 2014-15 Pratap Uttam Purohit rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' - On appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held

AHMED P. SURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

156 taxman.com 605 (Bom) has\nconsidered the facts of sale of shares and dismissed the\nrevenue appeal as under:\n3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip\nRamkrishna Fincap Ltd. (RFL) as long term capital gain and\nclaimed exemption under the Act Respondent had claimed to\nhave purchased this scrip at Rs.3.12/- per share in the year\n2003

INCLINE REALTY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was to be rejected, the Assessee was entitled to claim deduction for interest cost while computing Short Term Capital Gains arising from sale of mutual 8 Assessment Year 2015-2016 funds as the interest formed part of ‘cost of acquisition’. Reliance in this regards was placed on the following judicial precedents forming part

KETAN HARILAL MEHTA HUF BY ITS KARTA KETAN H MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-33(2)(2) MUMBAI PRESENTLY JURIDICTION WITH ITO 42(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleketan Harilal Mehta Huf Vs. Ito-42(1)(1), (By Its Karta Kautilya Bhavan, Ketanmehta)No.B/1101, Bkc,Bandra(E), Siddhi Vinayak Tower, Mumbai-400051. Opp Phoenix Hospital, Chikuwadi, Mumbai-400092. Pan/Gir No. : Aaehk3266N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nishit Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. P.D. Chougule.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)(Cit(A)) Delhi Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

156 taxman.com 605 (Bom) has considered the facts of sale of shares and dismissed the revenue appeal as under: 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. (RFL) as long term capital gain and Ketan Harilal Mehta, HUF,Mumbai. claimed exemption under the ActRespondent had claimed to have purchased this scrip at Rs.3.12/- per share

AMIT SAJJAN KUMAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

156 taxman.com 605 (Bom) has considered the facts of sale of shares and dismissed the revenue appeal as under: 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. (RFL) as long term capital gain and claimed exemption under the Act Respondent had claimed to have purchased this scrip at Rs.3.12/- per share in the year

INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MITESH MEHTA HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

section 68 and making such a huge addition (a) To prove identity of creditor and nature of transaction, the assessee has submitted a copy of sale contract note on BSE platform through Motilal Oswal securities Ltd. The contract note shows the quantity, rate, timestamp, value, taxes and charges, STT, brokerage, SEBI and exchange turnover charges, service tax and stamp duty