ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL GULABDAS SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5134/Mum/2017 & Co. No. 319/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit – 24(1) Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah, Room No. 604, 6Th Floor, B-1601, Titanium Towers बनाम/ 16Th Floor, Jai View Chsl Piramal Chamber, Parel Vs. Sahakar Nagar, Andheri (W) Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 058 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmfps-8959-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)/Respondent (""थ" / Respondent)/Appellant : Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore- Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Anil G. Shah – Assessee-In-Person सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-36/It-217/Acit-24(1)/15-16 Dated 26/05/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

Gains which enhanced the assessee’s income by Rs.9 Crores. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee contested the stand of Ld. A.O before learned first appellate authority by way of elaborate written submissions, which has already been reproduced in the impugned order and hence not repeated here for the sake of convenience and gravity. The remand report was also called for against

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

184) 54 is allowable in respect of purchase of two flats" The Judgment of High Court "Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, of Karnataka, in case of 1961, read with section 13 of the Commissioner Income-tax General Clauses Act, 1897 - Capital v. Khoobchand M. Makhija gains Profit on sale of property used (Copy of Order enclosed

ITO 32(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF VAIBHAV CO-OP. HSG. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Ito-32(3)(4) Vs. State Bank Of India Staff Room No.103, 1St Floor Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Co No.8/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5324/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year :2011-12) State Bank Of India Vs. Ito-32(3)(4) Room No.103, 1St Floor Staff Vaibhav Co-Op Hsg. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow No.8, Daulat M.K.Road, Nagar, Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 020 Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaias1423J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Santanu Kumar Saikia Assessee By Shri Dr. P. Daniel Date Of Hearing 13/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

section 2(47) wef .04.1998. In the present case the decision of Mumbai High Court which has come much later is more relevant. On the basis of the above discussions and after considering the totality of facts and principles of law I have come to a conclusion that there is no incidence of capital gain in the hands

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

5 Udayan Grover activity of the company is negligible the share prices have been artificially rigged to unusual high. The partied to whom these shares had been shown to sold for a huge profit are found to be paper entities operated by known entry providers. The transactions entered by the assessee involve the series of preconceived steps, the performance

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

gain realized from the sale of capital asset should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house. If the assessee has invested the money in construction of residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition

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

section 28(i)(a) is duly covered as capital asset as defined in sec 2(14). On covered as capital asset as defined in sec 2(14). On covered as capital asset as defined in sec 2(14). On such type of receipt being asset first charge on assessee such type of receipt being asset first charge on assessee such

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

5 Madhu Sarda disputed the working of valuation of shares. The grounds for denial of set off of Long-term capital loss against the long- term capital gain is because of related parties transaction. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in UOI Vs Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] Taxman373 (SC) held that an act which is otherwise valid in law cannot

DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), MUMBAI vs. SWISS FINANCE CORPORATION (MAURITIUS) LTD., , MAURITIUS

Gains before claiming benefit of Article 13(4) of the DTAA. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed assessment Under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act at „Nil‟ income after setting off entire brought forward Short Term Capital Loss of INR 1564,45,73,787/- and brought forward Long Term Capital Loss

NSE IT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

gain. This is not a case where any particulars of income or portion of income were concealed. The assessee has given full disclosure and explanations during the course of reassessment proceedings. The revised return of income filed by the assessee is accepted by department without any additions. 2. In this context, it is to be stated that penalty

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

DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI vs. NILESH RAMESH GANJWALA, MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

184). Capital gains exemption on investment in specified bonds. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 54EC of the Act provide that where capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset and the assessee has, at any time within a period of six months, invested the whole or any part of capital gains

GS STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

capital gains earned by the Appellant during the relevant previous year are exempt from tax in India in view of Article 13 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Mauritius [for short ‘DTAA’]. Since there is no taxable income during the current year, the provisions of Section 74 of the act are not triggered. 5. When the appeal

TVF FUND LTD., MAURITIUS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

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

5. Admittedly there is long-term capital gain and short-term capital gain on sale of share / derivatives acquired by the assessee prior to the 01/04/2017. The assessee also has short-term capital loss and long term capital loss, brought forward from A.Y. 2020-21. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee suffered long term capital loss

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

184 Calculation of disallowance u/s 14A: (i) Expenditure directly related to exempt income - (ii) Expenditure by way of interest not directly related to 821 exempt income (A x B)/C (iii) 0.5% of Average Investments 966 Total Disallowance u/s 14A 1,787 After allowing the credit of suo motto disallowance of Rs. 1,18,11,210/- , the AO disallowed

ADDL CIT 1(1), MUMBAI vs. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Bennett Coleman & Addl. Commissioner Of Co. Ltd., Income Tax, The Time Of India Bldg., Range – 1(1), Vs. Dr. D.N. Road, Room No.538, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaacb4373Q M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09

184 Calculation of disallowance u/s 14A: (i) Expenditure directly related to exempt income - (ii) Expenditure by way of interest not directly related to 821 exempt income (A x B)/C (iii) 0.5% of Average Investments 966 Total Disallowance u/s 14A 1,787 After allowing the credit of suo motto disallowance of Rs. 1,18,11,210/- , the AO disallowed

ACIT 32(2), MUMBAI vs. KIRAN G. GADHIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar: (A.Y : 2010-11) Acit 30(2) Vs. Shri Kiran G Gadhia Pratyakshkar Bhavan Flat No.305 / 306 R.No.202, 2Nd Floor 3Rd Floor, Sanjay Apartment Bkc, Bandra (E) B Wing, Mandapeshwar Road Mumbai – 400 051 Borivali (W) Mumbai – 400 092 Pan : Aabpg8511D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S S Bist प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Respondent By : Shri Haridas Bhat सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2017 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-44, Mumbai Dated 18.03.2015 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3).

capital gain. Placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan Malik vs. CIT [43 taxmann.com 200], the Ld. DR vehemently supports that the Delhi High Court held that in terms of section 2(42A) of the Act, the period of 36 months in respect of booking rights of apartment with a builder

M/S. ASARIA LALJI VADOR,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

section 263(1) Explanation 2 and case laws of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.), Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 8 M/s. Asaria Lalji Vador ITR 129 (Mad.) and CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat.) and accordingly

DY CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BLUEBAY MAURITUS INVESTMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 74(1) and not on treaty. Wherein loss is to be ascertained to be carried forwarded the subsequent assessment year on the base of net result of computation for which setting off of carried forward losses against the capital gains is required to be done. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case

MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground No.1 of assessee appeal is confirmation of disallowances of leave encashment of Rs.1,90,19,660/-. The Ld. AO had made disallowances of Rs.2,23,70,223/- by rejecting the contention of the assessee that provision of section 43B(f) had been held to be constitutionally invalid