THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C--2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Bombay Dyeing & Income-Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai, Manufacturing Co. Ltd Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Vs. Neville House, Jn Herdia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent - A.Y 2014-15 - A.Y 2015-16 M/S Bombay Dyeing & Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Manufacturing Co. Ltd Tax 2(1), Mumbai, Room Neville House, Jn Herdia No.561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Marg, Ballard Estate, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 001 400 020 Pan No. Aaact 2328 K Appellant Respondent

section 45(2) of the Act. The second issue is regarding issue is regarding computation of quantum of long computation of quantum of long-term capital gain, which has been term capital gain, which has been agitated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. ated by the assessee in ground no. 1 of its appeal. While ated

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 48.\n3. Profits or gains must arise from the transfer and must be\nembedded in the consideration.\nSince the point raised in the first argument is not material\nregarding the issue involved before us, therefore, it would suffice\nto point out that the Hon'ble court held that such contribution of\nthe capital by way of transfer of personal

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

171,050 37,626,969 Less: Exemption u/s 54 23,440,800 Renovation Expenditure 14,170,225 Lon Term Capital Gains 15,944 Ground No. 1 DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S. 54 AMOUNTING TO RS.1,18,58,360/- OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption claimed under section

BUNKIM FINANCE & INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 14A, directed Ld. AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of exempt income and deleted the balance disallowance of Rs.6.39 Lacs. The same has given rise to one of the grounds of cross-appeals. 3.3 Upon due consideration, we find that as per settled legal position, the provisions of Rule 8D were not applicable to the year under consideration

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 143(3). That reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., 374 ITR 645 and other Judgements of Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Delhi and Bombay ITAT. 20. As regards addition u/s. 68 of the Act for long term capital gain learned

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 143(3). That reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., 374 ITR 645 and other Judgements of Hon. Bombay High Court and Hon. Delhi and Bombay ITAT. 20. As regards addition u/s. 68 of the Act for long term capital gain learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-41(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA DILIP PATIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-41(2)(1), Sangeeta Dilip Patil, Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, 111, Marathon Max Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mulund Goregoan Link Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Aatpp 1470 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

171/-is capital gain only and not is capital gain only and not business income as per provision of section

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

section 69C of the Act ought to have been deleted.\n\n5. The Appellant trust the above submissions sufficiently clarify the facts and the Appellant's claims, contentions and grounds of appeal and request your Honour to consider the same at the time of deciding the appeal. However, in case your Honour desires any further information/clarification

INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MEETA BHAVESH GANATRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am The Income-Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Meeta Bhavesh 30(2)(3) Ganatra C-13, R.No.608, 6Th Floor A-1301, Vikas Park, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan Link Road, Malad (W) Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai – 400 064 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Agtpg2793A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 2(47)(ii) "Transfer" in relation to capital assets includes the extinguishment of any right therein. This letter of allotment extinguishes the rights of builder in the said flat In favour of the assessee in respect of this flat and by signing the letter of allotment, the assessee agreed to buy the same and for which payment was also

MADHU SARDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

capital gains. The doctrine laid down in MeDowell does not apply to the cases like the present one in M.V. Valliappan v. ITO [1988] 170 ITR 238, the Madras High Court held that a legitimate transaction which does not amount to a dubious device is not hit even by the new approach adopted by the Supreme Court in McDowell

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

171, where it was held as follows: - "Section 47 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was introduced to take out certain transactions which otherwise are transfers of capital assets and otherwise taxable under section 45, from being taxed. On the reintroduction of sub-sections (3) and (4) by the Finance Act, 1987 in section 45 clause (ii) of section

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)

capital gains on sale of shares as not genuine. Further the A.O. has not made any enquiry or independent investigation. The fact remains that the assessee is a regular investor in shares and has submitted the requisite details in respect of purchase and sale of shares and were not disproved. The transaction of sale of shares is through SEBI registered

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

THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GAURI TANDON, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleacit – 15(1)(1) V. Gauri Tandon Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Tandon Beach House Mumbai - 400020 Plot No. 35(Pt), Aajad Road Juhu Koliwada, Santacruz (W) Mumbai - 400049 Pan: Aaapb4013C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Smiti Samant

171,67,95,741/-. 11. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions on the issue of transfer of shares of HCLT and TML, Assessing Officer by gathering the information from BSE and NSE came to the conclusion that these transactions entered by the assessee in violation of the provisions of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent

SAURASHTRA FUELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 14A of the Act with retrospective effect from 01-04-1962 which clarifies that no deduction shall be allowed to the tax- payer in respect of the expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in relation to the ITA 7273-74/Mum/2012 3 income which does not form part of the total income. The AO relied upon the decision

GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ Gic Housing Finance Ltd. Addl. Cit Rg 2(1) Royal Insurance Building, R.No. 561, 5 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, J. Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Churchgate, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg2755R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Amit Kirve Revenue By : Shri A.M. Mittal, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 22/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 21.10.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 22.10.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016

capital gains earned on sale of shares of LICMF-AMC to Nomura is with respect to payments made towards fees/expenses to certain legal and financial professionals/advisors who were appointed in connection with the completion of transaction of induction of strategic investor in LICMF-AMC through divestment of minority stake or by way of issuance of fresh shares in LICMF

ACIT-35(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. HIMANSHU CHAKRAWARTI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri N. K. Pradhanacit- 35(1), Shri Himanshu Chakrawarti, Room No.902, 9Th Floor, 2207/2208, Ashok Towers, Kautilya Bhawan, G. Block, Tower ‘D’, Dr. S. S. Rao Bkc, Bandra(E), Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Mumbai-400051. Pan: Acgpc5033K Appellant Respondent : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Appellant By Revenue By : Shri Dr. K. Shivaram With Shri Rahul Hakani (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2021 Order

section 54 of the Act in regard to purchase of house by assessee i.e. residential house at Crescent Bay project at the cost of Rs. 5.45 crores. The Assessing Officer restricted the claim to the extent of Rs. 37,80,170/- invested in purchase of flat at Nirala Nagar, Lucknow by observing as under: The assessee deducted the amount