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

capital gain filed the documentary evidence such as contract notes, confirmation of SEBI registered stockbrokers, purchase bills, payment receipt, share certificate, Demat statement, bank statements, rate publication of Bombay stock exchange, advertisement issued by the seller in newspaper and other documents. Though the assessee had made off market purchase of the shares, but the payment has been made through banking

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

capital gain filed the documentary evidence such as contract notes, confirmation of SEBI registered stockbrokers, purchase bills, payment receipt, share certificate, Demat statement, bank statements, rate publication of Bombay stock exchange, advertisement issued by the seller in newspaper and other documents. Though the assessee had made off market purchase of the shares, but the payment has been made through banking

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

163 (Bombay) 4.1 The Ld. DR further submitted that the share subscriber further submitted that the share subscriber further submitted that the share subscribers were either having very low or n either having very low or nil income in the relevant assessment year il income in the relevant assessment year therefore, their creditworthiness to acquire shares with high therefore, their

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(14) of the Act.\nAccordingly, allotment of a shed and upon payment towards the dues, the\nassessee was entitled for computing LTCG as per the payments made.\"\n18. Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal\nwherein, it has been held that period of holding is to be computed from the letter

CARESTREAM HEALTH INC,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Carestream Health Inc Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of C/O. Carestream Health Income Tax, Range-2(1)(1) India Private Limited Scindia House, M.M.Road Sunteck Centre Ballard Pier 1St Floor, Subhash Road Mumbai – 400 028 Vile Parle (E) Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aaecc6050H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

section 2(47) of the Act. d) The assessee further submitted that the scheme of capital reduction requires prior approval of the Hon‟ble High Court. Before granting approval for such reduction of capital, the Court had to be satisfied that the consent of the creditors to the reduction of capital is obtained, or the claims or debts

ACIT 28 (2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. M/S NEEL SIDDHI DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.30/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neel Siddhi Developers 2Nd Floor, The Emerald Plot No. Of Income Tax 28(2), 195/B, Sec-12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai बिधम/ Mumbai- 400 703 Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, Tower Vs. No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagfn2744N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

section 2(42A) which defines the term "Short term capital asset" uses the phrase "held" and not "owned" or "purchased" She further stated that the valuable and enforceable rights of the Assessee got created when MOU was executed on 14.07.2006 in pursuance to a Resolution passed by the Board of the Original Vendor. She drew our attention to copy

ANIK INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 40, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

163 / 94 Taxman 164 where it was held as follows: "Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, defines "transfer" in relation to a capital asset. It is an inclusive definition which, inter alia, provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right therein amounts to a transfer of a capital asset. It is not necessary

AJAY J DOSHI (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

section 153A, when the assessment was not pending, was not justified." Similar order was passed by Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neeta Doshi & Snit Manisha Doshi, in the ITA No. 439/Mum/2010 and 441/Mum/2010 dated 30.11.2015 (Page No 134-150 of the Paperbook). From, a perusal of the above order it gets amply clear that the search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL DILIP SANKHE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

163 Taxman 426 (MP)J it was held that – "Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption

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(14) of the Act. Accordingly, allotment of a shed and upon payment towards the dues, the assessee was entitled for computing LTCG as per the payments made." 18. Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal wherein, it has been held that period of holding is to be computed from the letter

MATOSHREE REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 18(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

section 10 of the Contract Act, to hold that unless the particular law requires a contract to be in a prescribed form, a contract could be deduced from behavior of the parties’ correspondence between them and even their conversations, etc. The CIT(A), after discussing the law of contracts and the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 came

SHRI GIRISH P. RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 of the appeal is

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanshri Girish P. Rupani Acit-23(1) Room No. 122, 1St Floor, Makhija Chambers, 196, Turner Road, Bandra (W), Matru Mandir, Grant Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400007. Vs. Pan: Aaapr6723P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.M. Makhija (C.A.) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

section 2(14) . It held that the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs had been received by the assessee as consideration for assigning its rights under the agreement, which fell within the wide definition of 'capital asset' in the Act. It also held that the earnest money paid by the assessee to A was the consideration for which the property under

ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

capital receipt and on this count too, the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act cannot be applied. 14. In the case of DP World Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (26 taxmann.com 163), the Co-ordinate Bench has given the following finding:- 19. The AO has applied the provisions of Sec. 56 and treated the value of the flats

DIRECT MEDIA DISTRIBUTION VENTURES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO , RG-6(2)(3)(PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIR-RG-6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue dismissed and appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2715/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Assistant Commissioner Direct Media Distribution Of Income Tax 6(2)(2), Ventures Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai 135, Continental Building, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 048 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcd1940Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

capital receipt and on this count too, the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act cannot be applied. 14. In the case of DP World Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (26 taxmann.com 163), the Co-ordinate Bench has given the following finding:- 19. The AO has applied the provisions of Sec. 56 and treated the value of the flats

M/S. ASARIA LALJI VADOR,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

capital gain or sale of shares and deduction claimed u/s. 54EC of the Act after gathering informations relating to the above by relying on section 263(1) Explanation 2 and case laws of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.), Venkatakrishna Rice

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

163 of the paper book. Those are related to computation of capital gain, deduction u/s 36(1) (viia) and incorrect deduction of Rs 1385206491 u/s 36(1) (viii) of the Act. xi. She also relied up on the decision of Honourable Supreme court in case of Malabar industrial co Ltd 243 ITR 83 to submit that where

JAIKISHIN ATALRAM RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23 (2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

section 2(14) . It held that the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs had been received by the assessee as consideration for assigning its rights under the agreement, which fell within the wide definition of 'capital asset' in the Act. It also held that the earnest money paid by the assessee to A was the consideration for which the property under

DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI vs. SOLVAY SPECIALITIES INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

163,96,23,293/- made on account of international transaction of issue of equity shares (Rs. 144,55,27,000/-) and Rs. 19,40,96,293/- on account of notional interest without properly appreciating the factual and legal matrix of the case as clearly brought out by the TPO and AO in the draft assessment order