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

CYFAST ENTERPRISES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year:2011-12 Cyfast Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Afl House, Circle-10(3), बनाम/ Lok Bharati Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Marol Maroshi Road, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400059 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacu4945K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Sunil Jhunjhunwala राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Anandi Verma-Cit-Dr

capital gain from the transfer of assets of the undertaking as one unit, it can be seen from the above Table B that aggregate value of all assets have been fixed at `105 as against the book value of `10. This gives the figure of capital gain at `95 (`105 – 10). If we accept the contention of the assessee that

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

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an investor in past years, therefore to treat the appellant as trader for only one year, ie. for assessment year 2005-06 and deny set off of carry forward loss is neither judicious nor correct as it leads to injustice to the assessee

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an investor in past years, therefore to treat the appellant as trader for only one year, ie. for assessment year 2005-06 and deny set off of carry forward loss is neither judicious nor correct as it leads to injustice to the assessee

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an investor in past years, therefore to treat the appellant as trader for only one year, ie. for assessment year 2005-06 and deny set off of carry forward loss is neither judicious nor correct as it leads to injustice to the assessee

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an investor in past years, therefore to treat the appellant as trader for only one year, ie. for assessment year 2005-06 and deny set off of carry forward loss is neither judicious nor correct as it leads to injustice to the assessee

SURESH K JAJOO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an investor in past years, therefore to treat the appellant as trader for only one year, ie. for assessment year 2005-06 and deny set off of carry forward loss is neither judicious nor correct as it leads to injustice to the assessee

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SURESH K JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an investor in past years, therefore to treat the appellant as trader for only one year, ie. for assessment year 2005-06 and deny set off of carry forward loss is neither judicious nor correct as it leads to injustice to the assessee

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SURESH K. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an investor in past years, therefore to treat the appellant as trader for only one year, ie. for assessment year 2005-06 and deny set off of carry forward loss is neither judicious nor correct as it leads to injustice to the assessee

A.C.I.T. 4(2), MUMBAI vs. VIMLA SURESH JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an investor in past years, therefore to treat the appellant as trader for only one year, ie. for assessment year 2005-06 and deny set off of carry forward loss is neither judicious nor correct as it leads to injustice to the assessee

ACIT CIR-4(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. VIMLA S. JAJOO, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

192 ITR 619 (Cal)." (vii) The appellant has consistently been treated by various Assessing Officers as an investor in past years, therefore to treat the appellant as trader for only one year, ie. for assessment year 2005-06 and deny set off of carry forward loss is neither judicious nor correct as it leads to injustice to the assessee

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