SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains contained in Section 48 and 49. Secondly, it is well established in law that a fiction created by the legislature has to be confined to the purpose for which it is created. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. D. Hanumantha Rao reported

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains contained in Section 48 and 49. Secondly, it is well\nestablished in law that a fiction created by the legislature has to be confined to the\npurpose for which it is created. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of\nthe Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India V/s. D. Hanumantha Rao\nreported

FRANK S INTERNATIONAL ITL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE (2)(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the\nassessee

Section 50 is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in\nSection 48 and 49. Secondly, it is well established in law that a fiction created by the\nlegislature has to be confined to the purpose for which it is created. In this connection, we\nmay refer to the decision of the Apex Court

MATRIX PARTNERS INDIA INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

section 90(2), the Ld. A.O. has granted the beneficial option to the applicant at the preference of the Applicant itself. 11. Treaty Provisions are applicable in re/ qua "Income" and not "sources". In this case, there has been one single species of Income, "capital gains" that too, Long Term Capital Gains. 7. To sum up, as per facts

DHANANJAY MADHUKAR NAIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhananjay Madhukar Naik V. Ito 12(3)(3) 306, Meghdoot Chsl, Sahaji Raje Marg Room No. 1631, 16Th Floor Koldongri, Vile Parle (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400057 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Alrpn7498M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Masand Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

capital gain for purchase of a residential unit, he is entitled to deduction u/s. 54 irrespective of the fact that builder has not completed the construction or has not yet handed over the flat. 7.4. In the case of CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727/108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) (Placed at PB Page No. 173-175) it has been

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

183 |\n| 3. | Income from Other Sources | | 36,21,473 |\n| 4. | Gross Total Income | | 3,34,94,656 |\n| 5. | Assessed Income | | 3,34,94,656 |\n| 6. | Rounded off to | | 3,34,94,660 |\n4. The assessee filed the objections before the Hon'ble DRP who\ndeclined to accept the contentions of the assessee and concluded in para

FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

capital gains of INR 10,453,637,124 as per the Final Order and thereby computing higher tax liability 4 Florida Retirement System Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act-Rs. 62,183

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

capital gain. With respect to the claim of the assessee that an appraisal report copy should be given to the assessee, there is no provision in the law of such information and internal document required to be given to the assessee. It is not the claim of the assessee that not all the evidences are placed before him for confrontation

OMNIFIC ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER .21(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

capital gains contained in Section 48 and 49. Secondly, it is well established in law that a fiction created by the legislature has to be confined to the purpose for which it is created. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. D. Hanumantha Rao reported

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) :

gains arising from the transfer of shares in the hands of transferor companies by taking advantage of exemption under Section 47(iii). However, it is not relevant in so far as for the purpose of determining the tax liability in the hands of the assessee company being Transferee Company arising from the transfer of shares for nil consideration. He also

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) :

gains arising from the transfer of shares in the hands of transferor companies by taking advantage of exemption under Section 47(iii). However, it is not relevant in so far as for the purpose of determining the tax liability in the hands of the assessee company being Transferee Company arising from the transfer of shares for nil consideration. He also

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

section 263 of the income tax act on following counts. i. Irregular allowance of long-term capital loss of Rs. 99,675.31 lakhs wherein it has been held that the assessee has applied the cost of inflation index on foreign currency while computing the capital gain on the assets acquired out of foreign currency. Connected issue is with respect

ABDUL NAYAB SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MATURMANDIR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Capital Gain as Sales of property was invested in purchase of new residential\nproperty as under:-\n[a] By Mr. Abdul Nayab Shaikh in Flat No.508-B\n[b] By MrsGulbano Abdul Nayab Shaikh in Flat No.508-A\nRs.48,12,600\nRs.51,27,600\n3]\nTherefore, both the joint owners are individually eligible to exemption U/s 54 of Income\nTax