MORGAN STANLEY MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

section (1) of Sec. 74 of the Act for carrying fo the Act for carrying forward the capital losses pertaining to the same rward the capital losses pertaining to the same type and nature of income for set type and nature of income for set-off against future capital gains in off against future capital gains in subsequent assessment years

TMF HOLDING LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -1, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

gain earned by the Assessee is in the nature of the capital receipt and the same should be excluded while computing the book profit under section 11 5JB of the Act. 56. Reliance is placed on following decisions wherein it has been held that where a particular receipt is not in the nature of 'income', it cannot also be considered

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital loss or not.\nThe Hon'ble High Court held that consequent to assessee's\ndefault in not paying the balance of money on allotment, its right\nin the shares stood extinguished on its forfeiture and the loss\nsuffered by the assessee, i.e., non-recovery of share application\nmoney is consequent to the forfeiture of its right in the shares

NETESOFT INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

section 70(3). 10. Coming to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. (supra), the issue involved there was, whether the loss on transfer of capital asset being units US 64 Scheme of Unit Trust of India can be allowed and entitled to carry forward the same for set off of in subsequent

ITO 25(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. KIRIT RAOJIBHAI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

section 45 to be the subject of the charge". In that case, the court was considering whether a firm was liable to pay capital gains on the sale of its goodwill to another firm. The court found that the consideration received for the sale of goodwill could not be subjected to capital gains because the cost of its acquisition

INDIUM IV (MAURITIUS) HOLDINGS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

192,665,193 Page No. | 15 Indium IV (Mauritius) Holdings Limited The tax treatment adopted in respect of capital gains and losses from transfer/ alienation of Indian securities have been offered to tax as follows: -  Long-Term Capital Loss - carried forward under section

ACTION FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

192 (SC). 4.4 Per contra Ld. DR relied upon the order’s of the Ld. CIT-A. 4.5 We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that section 74(1) provides for as under:- “74. (1) Where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head "Capital gains

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

section 143(3) of the Act, wherein, addition of Rs.1,09,25,665/- was made. The assessee sold 5000 equity shares on a consideration of Rs.3,82,00,000/-, as per the assessee, which resulted into Long Term Capital Gain (hereinafter LTCG) of Rs.3,81,12,192

SANTOSH MARESHWAR RACK VI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2021/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Santosh Moreshwar Rack Vi बिधम/ Ito Ward 2(2) 3/37, Anand Ashray, Ram Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Road, Bhayander Tax(A)-1, Room No.30, B Wing, 6Th (W), Thane-401101. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpr6634P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikhil A. Rajadhyaksha Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. That The Ito Ward 2(2), Thane & The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Thane Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating The Fact That This Matter Has Been Decided By The Itat A.Y.2012-13

192 wherein it was held that if there are two views possible, the view favourable to the assessee should be taken. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and delete the grounds of appeal at or before the time of the hearing. ” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income

NITESH RAJHANS SINGH,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been filed challenging the order dated January 17, 2022, passed by the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'SMC' Lucknow in IT. A. No. 205 of 2020 (assessment year 2014-15). The basic question involved in the present appeal is with regard to deletion of some amount which was added

SHAILY PRINCE GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

capital gain exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act was subject matter of adjudication, in favour of the assessee. This decision rendered in the case of Smt Krishna Devi considers all the propositions laid out hereinabove and are squarely applicable to the facts before us. Infact the Hon'ble High Court duly endorses the elaborate findings given by the Delhi

PRAKASH GAJANAN BHOIR,THANE vs. ITO WD- 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

192 was computed and the same was claimed by the assessee in its return of income under the Act for the year under consideration. 7. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the computation of capital gain as made by the assessee as, according to him, section

PRATIBHA GAJANAN BHOIR,KALYAN vs. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

192 was computed and the same was claimed by the assessee in its return of income under the Act for the year under consideration. 7. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the computation of capital gain as made by the assessee as, according to him, section

PRAMILA GAJANAN BHOIR,THANE vs. ITO WD 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

192 was computed and the same was claimed by the assessee in its return of income under the Act for the year under consideration. 7. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the computation of capital gain as made by the assessee as, according to him, section

DRAUPADIBAI GAJANAN BHOIR,KALYAN vs. ITO WD3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

192 was computed and the same was claimed by the assessee in its return of income under the Act for the year under consideration. 7. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the computation of capital gain as made by the assessee as, according to him, section

PRADEEP GAJANAN BHOIR,THANE vs. ITO WD- 3(2), KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

192 was computed and the same was claimed by the assessee in its return of income under the Act for the year under consideration. 7. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the computation of capital gain as made by the assessee as, according to him, 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 and treated the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income from undisclosed sources under s. 68-Not justified- Fact that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of the same companies through the same broker cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are sham and bogus, especially when documentary evidence has been

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

section 54F could not be 54F could not be rejected in respect of capital gains earned from transfer of her respect of capital gains earned from transfer of her respect of capital gains earned from transfer of her individual property. It is a settled position that . It is a settled position that in the absence of in the absence