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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT) - 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground number 6 raised by the assessee which is held by the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application order as not decided is now adjudicated and allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr5055K Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Nimesh Vora & Ms Moksha Mehta, Cas, Ars' Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Damor, Cit Dr

163. With regard to Axis Integrated Systems Ltd, we notice that the said company is providing services in respect of regulatory and licensing requirements by liasioning with Government and regulatory authorities. On the other hand, the assessee is providing back office support services, which are mostly internal services. Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) has held that M/s Axis Integrated Systems

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

In the result, additional ground number 6 raised by the assessee which is held by the coordinate bench in miscellaneous application order as not decided is now adjudicated and allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr5055K Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Reliance Industries Limited Large Taxpayer Unit, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber-Iv 29Th Floor, Center No.1, World Vs. 222, Nariman Point, Trade Centre, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Shri Nimesh Vora & Ms Moksha Mehta, Cas, Ars' Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Damor, Cit Dr

163. With regard to Axis Integrated Systems Ltd, we notice that the said company is providing services in respect of regulatory and licensing requirements by liasioning with Government and regulatory authorities. On the other hand, the assessee is providing back office support services, which are mostly internal services. Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) has held that M/s Axis Integrated Systems

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

capital gains at Rs.47,29,87,427/-. Where he is\nnot even authorised to reopen the case as reassessment\nproceedings were initiated after the expiry of 15 yearsfrom\nthe end of the assessment year. reassessment proceedings are\nvoid and bad in law.\n11. Thus based on above the Ld. AO reopened the case for AY 2003-04\nas per provision

SHRI BALKRISHNA GAJANAN THOPTE,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 142(1) of the Act was issued asking to the\nassessee to file return of income online.\n6. In response, assessee filed his return of income for A.Υ. 2014-15\nonline on 01/08/2018. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the\nAct along with questionnaire was issued on 26/09/2018 and served upon\nthe assessee

INDUR THANWERDAS DADLANI,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-42, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed without any order as to cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarindur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. Cit Flat No. 4604, The Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, Mp Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar Bb Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aacpd5262D (Applicant) (Respondent)

capital gains on sale of unquoted shares. In the course of assessment proceedings, the submissions with respect to reasons as per CASS was perused. Considering all the aspects of the case & based on the submissions and evidence uploaded, explanation and reasoning offered by the assessee the returned income of the assessee for the A.Y 2020-21 was accepted" 8 Indur

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

163 taxmann.com P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2020-21 Jewelex India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 536(Mum)considered the provisions of Companies Act and Income Tax Act and held as follows: "11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The only morn question to be decided here is whether the expenditure towards CSR activities

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

section 35D and the arguments of both the parties, we are of the view that there are no change in the facts as in the last 7 years and, therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321, it would not be at all appropriate

HETAL DAXESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. A. C. OF INCOME TAX 19 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

gains or STCL. However, the reasons so recorded do not specify whether the assessee has claimed exempt income u/s. 10(38) or has claimed Short Term Capital Loss. It was submitted that it is therefore a clear case of non- application of mind by the AO to the information so received. It was further submitted that the assessee has neither

SINDHUMATI RAMAVTAR PATHAK,BORIVALI MUMBAI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 32 3 MUMBAI PRESENTLY DY C I T CIRCLE 42 3 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak Acit-32(3) 4, Shree Bhalchandra Kripa Presently Cit, Circle Building, Daulat Nagar Road Vs. 42(3)(1) No. 3, Borivali East Kautilya Bhavan Bkc, Mumbai-400 066. Mumbai-51. Pan : Agbpp5972D Appellant Respondent

163 taxmann.com 229(Madhya Pradesh) (viii) Pr. CIT Vs. Ritu Agarwal Shreeram (2023) 453 ITR 520 (Rajasthan) 5. There is no allegation of manipulation against the SEBI or department. Hence, Long Term Capital Gains cannot be treated as non genuine, (i) Pr. CIT vs. Indravadan Jain HUF [2023] 156 taaxmann.com 605 (Bom) 5 Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak (ii) Bhavin Vaghasia

MATERIAL RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE16(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

163 Transfer charges paid to Society Brokerage 69,767 Long Term Capital 1,05,94,837 Gain 7. In appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals), while affirming the applicability of section