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)

section 68. There was no evidence or any whisper that some unaccounted money had been routed and hence, sale proceeds should not be added. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CASES INVOLVING YAMINI INVESTMENTS COMPANY LTD. SN CITATION OBSERVATION 1. IN THE INCOME- 9. After considering the entire facts and TAX APPELLATE circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has TRIBUNAL rightly

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

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

1,182,617/– as per paragraph number 7 – 8 of the appellate order. 10. The learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and has raised grounds in this appeal. 11. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer stating that. a. Assessee has earned abnormally huge capital gain on sale of shares

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

ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHIN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

gains; and nothing in clause (xv) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to authorise—….. (b) any allowance in respect of any payment by way of interest, salary, commission or remuneration made by a firm to any partner of the firm;…" It is plain that salaries paid to partners are regarded by the Income- tax Act, as retaining the character

PAHILAJRAI JAIKISHAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

gains; and nothing in clause (xv) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to authorise—….. (b) any allowance in respect of any payment by way of interest, salary, commission or remuneration made by a firm to any partner of the firm;…" It is plain that salaries paid to partners are regarded by the Income- tax Act, as retaining the character

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

1 against the reopening of the assessment is not pressed and therefore same is dismissed. 4. This leaves us with the only aspect in this appeal with respect to the addition made under section 68 of the income tax act and denial of claim of exemption under section 10 (38) of the act. 5. Brief facts of the case shows

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

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

1) on the assessee's premises on 18.01.2007 on the allegation that assessee obtained artificial capital gains. However, nowhere in the assessment order the AO has stated any incriminating document, paper or evidence found during search in allegation of bogus capital gain. 16. In view of above discussion, since no incriminating material was found during the course of search

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

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

1 & 2, the only question which need to\nbe determined by us is as to whether the indexation benefit of the long term\ncapital gain on the asset will be from the letter of intent dated 14th Feb 2011\nwhich being claimed date of allotment of the capital asset by the assessee or\nfrom 20.12.2017, the date of registration

ACIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI vs. PFIZER LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

163,000 on goodwill arising on amalgamation. iv. Further on the difference of income of 2 companies, the learned CIT – A also asked that there is a bad debts written off out of the provision for doubtful debts, inadvertently not claimed in the original return of income filed but same was claimed in the revised return of income filed

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 14(2) (2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

163,000 on goodwill arising on amalgamation. iv. Further on the difference of income of 2 companies, the learned CIT – A also asked that there is a bad debts written off out of the provision for doubtful debts, inadvertently not claimed in the original return of income filed but same was claimed in the revised return of income filed

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

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

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

163 taxmann. com 536 (Mum); • Optum Global Solutions (India) P Ltd- (2023) 154 taxmann. com 651 (Hyd); • JMS Mining (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2021) 130 taxmann.com 118 (Kol); • Societe General Securities India P Ltd - (2023) 157 taxmann. com 533 (Mum); • FDC Ltd. vs. PCIT-(2023) 157 taxmann.com 387 (Mumbai - Trib.); • Britannia Industries Ltd vs. DCIT-(2024) 161 taxmann.com 393 (Kolkata

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 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

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 of, in case of investment in residential house - Whether where an assessee possessed a residential house already on date of transfer of original asset which is subjected to capital gain, assessee would not be entitled to exemption contained in section

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