ASHAPURA MINECHEM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2019-20 Ashapura Minechem Limited, Adit, 3Rd Floor, Centralized Processing Centre, Jeevan Udyog Building, Vs. Income Tax Department, 278, D.N. Road, Fort, Bengaluru Mumbai. Pan : Aaaca0957F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain offered in the original return of income. 6. The Ld.CIT(A), however, took the view that the above said claim of the assessee is in the nature of “incorrect claim” apparent from the information given in the return. Accordingly, he upheld the adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return of income

MUKESH KISHINDAS BATHIJA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Gains as the SDV was nearly double the sale consideration as per the sale deed and there was no evidence to prove that it was a distress sale.\n6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. At the outset, we note that section 50C provides as under:\n“50C. (1) Where the consideration received

BHAVESH SHANTILAL GOHIL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-35(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhavesh Shantilal Gohil A-1304, Gohil Mansion, Irani Wadi, Shantilal Mody X Road No. 2, Asian Bakary Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067 Pan: Abkpg2287Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito – 35(1)(2) R. No. 2, C-12, Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

16A of that Act. 32[Explanation 1].—for the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). 33[Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

MOHAMMED KHALID HABIB PARIHAR,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O., WARD-31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains based on stamp duty value under section 50C of the Act. It was further held that only during the appellate proceedings, the assessee requested to refer the case to the Departmental Valuation Officer (“DVO”). The learned CIT(A) held that the request made by the assessee for the valuation of the impugned land by the DVO is unacceptable

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

section 147 of the Act was done/properly following the due process of law and there is no infirmity or illegality in reopening the assessment and the notice issued u/s.148 for the year under consideration is perfectly legal and valid. Therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed.” 4. The Assessee has challenged the above finding. During the course of appellate

VICKI ELECTRONICS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-31(3)()5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Income Tax Officer Vicki Electronics, Gala 31(3)(5), Bandra Kurla No. 23, Back Side Complex, Sidhpura Industrial Mumbai –400051 Estate, Off. S.V. Road, Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aaafv0824B (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 55A of the Act r.w.s. 16A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as also the principles of natural 3 justice while valuing the Appellant's immovable property. 8. The CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in overlooking the fact that the DVO made the valuation of immovable property without following the accepted principles of valuation, which

RAMESH S SHAH,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhramesh S. Shah Vs. The Dcit, 203, A Wing Peninsula Central Circle -5(3) Corporate Park Ganpatrao Room No. 1906, 19Th Kadam Marg, Floor, Air India Building Lower Parel, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400013 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aagps9863H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Agnes P. Thomas Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2023

gain on sale of property as per the deeming provisions of Sec. 50C of the Act by taking the value of the property assessed by stamp duty authority. After perusal of the above facts and material on record we find that assessee has objected before the assessing officer regarding the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority on the reason

THE BOMBAY SAMACHAR PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

gains, accordingly. The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.1450/Mum./2023 i. The AO and CIT(A) should have appreciated that the said property was in dispute and on account of the dispute fetched a value lower than that assessed by the Stamp Duty Authorities. ii. The AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the request of the assessee in calling

NIRMALA NAWAL PHATARPHEKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes in above terms

gain and long\nterm capital loss claimed by the assessee in the ITR which has not been\nconsidered by the revenue authorities and submitted that the intimation\norder dated 04.04.2019 passed u/s 143(1) of the Act be quashed and the\nappeal of the assessee be allowed by directing the AO to allow the carry\nforward of long term capital

PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpyramid Developers, 2Nd Floor, Sharda Bhavan, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 400 005, Pan: Aaifp1958J ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle 32(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Respondent

gains from transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration:] [Provided further that in the transfer of such residential unit takes place during the case of transfer of an asset, period beginning from the 12th day of November, 2020 and being a residential unit, the ending on the 30th day of June, 2021; provisions

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

Gains' and 'Income from Other Sources'. The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the completed under Section

LINTAS EMPLOYEES FAMILY PLANNING ASSISTANCE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2019-20

Gains’ and failed to take into consideration, that the same represented only the book profits on redemption of Mutual Funds (i.e. LTCG computed without indexation), whereas in fact the Assessee has incurred a Long-Term Capital Loss of Rs.10,85,580/- (where LTCG is computed with indexation) and the same has already been duly accepted

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S RISHABRAJ INFRA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 3246/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2015-16) Acit, C.Circle -2(1), Vs. Rishabraj Infrapvtltd., Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 212, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Bldg No. 3, Hari Om Mumbai – 400020. Plaza, Mg Road, Boravali (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcv2975P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Riddhi Mishra.Dr Revenue By : Mr.Karan Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

16A. The assessee has submitted the Audited financial statements and others evidences to substantiate the creditworthiness, identity and genuineness of the loan creditors. The AO has dealt independently on the unsecured loan creditors and is of the opinion that the companies does not have proper financial status and the assessee has failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

BALRAJSINGH JAGJITSINGH KHARBANDA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Balrajsinghjagjitsingh Adit, Cpc Bangalore, Kharbanda, Cpc, Bangalore-560500. C/3, Ravi Darshan, Sherly Vs. Rajan Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Adhpk 1733 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rajesh S. Kothari Revenue By : Kamble Minal Mohan, Dr : Date Of Hearing 05/06/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 07/06/2023 Order

gains of business or profession". Condition for allowance under section 37 Condition for allowance under section 37 Such expenditure should not be covered under the specific Such expenditure should not be covered under the specific Such expenditure should not be covered under the specific section i.e. sections 30 to 36. ection i.e. sections 30 to 36. Expenditure should

DSV AIR & SEA PVT. LTD (SUCESSSOR TO PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JT/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

gain on foreign exchange fluctuation", "provision for bad debts written back and miscellaneous income as non- operating in nature for the purpose of computing the operating margin of the Appellant, without ITA No.796/M/202 4 M/s. DSV Air & Sea Pvt. Ltd. [Successor to Panalpina World Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd.] appreciating that the same are operating in nature and related

DSV AIR & SEA PVT LTD.,,MUM vs. ASST UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT, ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFASSC, MUM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

16A and also showed documents that from same very parties, assessee had carried out transaction in next year also. With respect two parties, viz., Emirates Shipping Line and Lakshmanan Ramchandran, assessee has also filed GST return in Form 2A and also pointed out that Emirates Shipping Line is still active and other three companies have been amalgamated in the subsequent

TATA CONSULTANCY SERRVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

gains"; when it speaks of the transfer of "all or any rights", it expressly includes the granting of a licence in respect thereof; and it states that such transfer must be "in respect of" any copyright of any literary work. However, even where such transfer is 'in respect of" copyright, the transfer of all or any rights in relation