ISHARES CORE MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCESSOR TO ISHARES CORE EMERGING MARKETS MAURITIUS COMPANY),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains u/s\n111A amounting to Rs.88,08,601 twice and taxed at 15% with surcharge and\ncess in the computation sheet.\n9. Without prejudice to above, erred in not setting off the net long term capital\ngains chargeable to tax against brought forward long term capital loss in the\ncomputation sheet as done so in the impugned order.\n10. Without

ISHARES INDIA 50 ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES INDIA MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains u/s\n111A amounting to Rs.88,08,601 twice and taxed at 15% with surcharge and\ncess in the computation sheet.\n9. Without prejudice to above, erred in not setting off the net long term capital\ngains chargeable to tax against brought forward long term capital loss in the\ncomputation sheet as done so in the impugned order.\n10. Without

ISHARES CORE MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains u/s\n111A amounting to Rs.88,08,601 twice and taxed at 15% with surcharge and\ncess in the computation sheet.\n9. Without prejudice to above, erred in not setting off the net long term capital\ngains chargeable to tax against brought forward long term capital loss in the\ncomputation sheet as done so in the impugned order.\n10. Without

ISHARES MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ETF (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ISHARES EMERGING MARKETS INDEX MAURITIUS CO ),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains u/s\n111A amounting to Rs.88,08,601 twice and taxed at 15% with surcharge and\ncess in the computation sheet.\n9. Without prejudice to above, erred in not setting off the net long term capital\ngains chargeable to tax against brought forward long term capital loss in the\ncomputation sheet as done so in the impugned order.\n10. Without

DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI vs. AVINASH NIVRUTTI BHOSALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

capital gain, the ld. AO had not made any reference to any seized material found during the course of search to justify the said addition. Admittedly, the assessment for A.Y.2012-13 being unabated assessment, there cannot be any disturbance to the originally concluded assessment / appellate proceeding unless there is any incriminating material found during the course of search relatable to such

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)

CAPITAL GAIN TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(38) ARE AS UNDER: 5 Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF)., Mumbai. The assessee is a regular investor in share market since many years. The assessee was not involved into buying of Yamini Investments Company Limited. The flow of transaction was as follows: 1. The Assesseewas alloted20,000 Equity

ACIT-17(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST., MUMBAI

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

191(Delhi), wherein it was held that as per section 2(14), the term "property" is of wide amplitude. It signifies every possible interest which a person can acquire, hold and enjoy. Thus, all these judgments dispels doubts expressed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) that these shares were not in nature of capital asset in the hands

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST, MUMBAI

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

191(Delhi), wherein it was held that as per section 2(14), the term "property" is of wide amplitude. It signifies every possible interest which a person can acquire, hold and enjoy. Thus, all these judgments dispels doubts expressed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) that these shares were not in nature of capital asset in the hands

VINOD L. GADHIYA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC5(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital gain by the assessee. The assessee has furnished various documents as stated hereinabove to corroborate the claim under section 10(38) of the Act. We note that assessee has furnished all the details qua bank accounts, D Mat and trading account, process of preferential allotment and the person to whom the investments were made and also 42 ITA Nos.2785

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

191(Delhi), wherein it was held that as per section 2(14), the term “property” is of wide amplitude. It signifies every possible interest which a person can acquire, hold and enjoy. Thus, all these judgments dispels doubts expressed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) that these shares were not in nature of capital asset in the hands

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

capital gain was re-invested by purchasing Bonds eligible for exemption u/s. 54EC within the time permissible u/s 54EC of the Act and was eligible for claim as per law. c. Your appellant pleads that the exemption u/s 54EC claimed by the appellant and accepted by the AO be not disturbed and be allowed.” 6. At the time of hearing

DILIP DIVAKARAN KANATH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-26(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledilip Divakaran Kanath V. Income Tax Officer- 26(1)(1) 503, Brookhill Dgit (Vigilance) (West) Building Mumbai- 400020 Ghodbunder Road, Hiranandani Estate Thane- 400607 Pan: Aakpk4474C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Malav P. Sheth Department Represented By : Shri Milind Chavan

191/-. However, while finalizing the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10 in the case of assessee’s wife, Page No. | 2 ITA.NO. 2820/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2009-10) Dilip Divakaran kanath the erstwhile Assessing Officer has allowed 50% deduction i.e., to the extent of ₹.16,32,595/-. 4. While finalizing the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10, the erstwhile Assessing Officer

RAJESHWAR RAJ BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3200/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Rajeshwar Raj Bajaaj, Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ C/O Mangaldas D. Shah & Income Tax – 12(2), V. Co.,506, Lotus House, 5T H 1St Floor, Floor,33-A, New Marine R. No. 123, Lines,Mumbai – 400 020. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafpb 2036G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(2) of the Act, the A.O. observed that the assessee has shown Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) of Rs. 23,64,191

COX & KINGS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

gains were not chargeable before 1946. They were not chargeable between 1948 and 1956. Therefore, whenever an amount which is otherwise a capital receipt is to be charged to tax, section 2(24) specifically so provides." In view of the above, we find considerable substance in the assessee's case that neither the capital receipts received by the assessee

VINOD K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

capital gain and charge tax 10% but denying exemption u/s 54F without assigning any reason. 10. appellant facts are different than what modus appending mention by A.O. 11. notice u/s 148 is not valid it was served before information received at the time of service no information in possession of A.O. 12. confession of broker and gold star is general

VINOD K.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

capital gain and charge tax 10% but denying exemption u/s 54F without assigning any reason. 10. appellant facts are different than what modus appending mention by A.O. 11. notice u/s 148 is not valid it was served before information received at the time of service no information in possession of A.O. 12. confession of broker and gold star is general

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. STANDARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

gains in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the said expense is incurred wholly and exclusively in relation to assignment of leasehold rights of plot of land; 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever modify all or any of the foregoing grounds

SHRI. SAJAL RADHIKAMOHAN KAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27 (3) , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

section, and the son becomes the owner of the property for all the purposes. The deceased/assessee, admittedly, had no domain and/or right whatsoever on the said property. This fact itself, therefore, disentitled him to claim any exemption as there were various non-compliances of the conditions as per the scheme