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

capital gains and the slump sale agreement (Refer page 57 to 89 of Paperbook) and vide submission dated 21 November 2017(Refer page 90 to 93 of Paperbook) wherein Accountants report in Form 3CEA in respect of the slump sale was also submitted. • There were various decisions on the issue available on the date of passing of order under section

PRASHANT KOTHARI,SINGAPORE vs. CIT A (57) MUMBAI, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS MUMBAI

In the result, the additional ground of\nappeal is allowed

section 10(38) of the Act and are not subject matter of\ndispute. During the assessment proceedings, the claim of the Assessee in\nrespect of the capital gains was modified by the AO and the details of the\nclaim made by the Appellant in the return of income and treatment by the\nAO in the assessment order which

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)

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

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

Capital Gain" in terms of Section 45(5)(b) of the IT Act r.w.s 48 of the IT Act. The balance interest paid to the appellant for any delay in payment of the compensation, from the date of acquisition of the property in pursuance to High Court/Supreme Court order, the same should be taxed under the head "Income from Other

SETH INDUSTRIES P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(3)(2),

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijitdey & Shrirajesh Kumaracit (Osd)-2(3) M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Room No. 556, 5Th Floor 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2) 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Mumbai Vs. Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent

Section 50(1) of the Act. Per contra, it is the claim of the assessee that the property sold is land, hence it has to be assessed as long term capital gain. Though, it is a fact that in the schedule of fixed assets forming part of the Balance Sheet assessee has shown the value of staff quarters

ACIT (PSD) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SETH INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijitdey & Shrirajesh Kumaracit (Osd)-2(3) M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Room No. 556, 5Th Floor 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent M/S. Seth Industries P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-2(3)(2) 14/15, Ashoka Shopping Mumbai Vs. Centre, 2Nd Floor, L.T. Marg Mumbai 400001 Pan –Aaecs9189D Appellant Respondent

Section 50(1) of the Act. Per contra, it is the claim of the assessee that the property sold is land, hence it has to be assessed as long term capital gain. Though, it is a fact that in the schedule of fixed assets forming part of the Balance Sheet assessee has shown the value of staff quarters

A.C.I.T.19(2), MUMBAI vs. ALKA KIRITKUMAR UPADHYAY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2617/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) A.C.I.T. – 19(2), Smt. Alka Kiritkumar बनाम/ Room No. 315, 3 Rd Floor, Upadhyay, V. Piramal Chambers, Alka Bldg., 6T H Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai –400 054. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaapu0228Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 143(2) of the Act , it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee has offered short term capital gain of Rs. 44,97,330/- for taxation in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee was asked to explain why the income derived from short term capital gain should not be treated as income from business

NELCO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 15(2)(1) Nelco Limited Room No.357, 2Nd Floor, El-6, Electronic Zone, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1983C

gain u/s 50 B of the act. Same reasoning also applies to all these items of adjustment claimed by the assessee. 033. The ld CIT (A) has deal with this issue as under :- “5.4 Ground No. 3 to 6 Reduction of Sundry Creditors of Rs.1,30,41,920/-, Other Liabilities of Rs.1,94,17,656/-, Gratuity and Leave Encashment

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Capital Gain" in terms of 21 ITA No. 2270 & 3286 Mum 2016-Leila Advani Section 45(5)(b) of the IT Act r.w.s 48 of the IT Act. The balance interest paid to the appellant for any delay in payment of the compensation, from the date of acquisition of the property in pursuance to High Court/Supreme Court order, the same

MAHALAXMI INNOVATIVE SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4856/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mahalaxmi Innovative Services Ltd. Dcit Cir 2(2) बिधम/ 1004, 10Th Floor, Maker Chambers-V, Mumbai Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm9810C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 88E of the ‘Act’. The aforesaid claim of the assessee is further supported by the very fact that the brokerage paid for purchasing the shares were included by the assessee in the ‘purchase’, while for that paid on the sale of shares was deducted from the ‘sales’. 12. We have further given a thoughtful consideration to the facts

KRISHNA SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ms. Krishna Sharma Vs. Addl Cit – 19(1), Mumbai G-3, Black Diamond Chs, Khar Danda Road, Khar(W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan/Gir No. Aaops5770R Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 10(38), the levy of tax has been reduced to 10% on short term capital gains and long term capital gains have been made exempt. Under the old provisions of the Act, profits or gains arising to an investor from the transfer of securities were charged depending on the period of holding of the said securities. Short term capital

DCIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ms. Krishna Sharma Vs. Addl Cit – 19(1), Mumbai G-3, Black Diamond Chs, Khar Danda Road, Khar(W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan/Gir No. Aaops5770R Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 10(38), the levy of tax has been reduced to 10% on short term capital gains and long term capital gains have been made exempt. Under the old provisions of the Act, profits or gains arising to an investor from the transfer of securities were charged depending on the period of holding of the said securities. Short term capital

GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बिाम/ Gic Housing Finance Ltd. Addl. Cit Rg 2(1) Royal Insurance Building, R.No. 561, 5 Th Floor, 6Th Floor, J. Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Churchgate, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacg2755R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Amit Kirve Revenue By : Shri A.M. Mittal, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 22/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 21.10.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 22.10.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2011-12. I.T.A. No.22/Mum/2016

capital gains earned on sale of shares of LICMF-AMC to Nomura is with respect to payments made towards fees/expenses to certain legal and financial professionals/advisors who were appointed in connection with the completion of transaction of induction of strategic investor in LICMF-AMC through divestment of minority stake or by way of issuance of fresh shares in LICMF

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

capital gains have been claimed as exempt from income tax under section 10(34) and 10(38) of the Act respectively. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) held that in the preceding year 1% of the dividend income has been disallowed under section 14A after assessee has explained his position. The assessee has also filed the computation

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

capital gains have been claimed as exempt from income tax under section 10(34) and 10(38) of the Act respectively. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) held that in the preceding year 1% of the dividend income has been disallowed under section 14A after assessee has explained his position. The assessee has also filed the computation

ACIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI vs. DATTANI DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5075/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Acit – 25(3), M/S Dattani Development, बनाम/ C-11, R. No. 308, 100, Shreeji Darshan, V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, 1St Floor, S.V. Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Kandivali (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 067. Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabfd4969Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 50C of the Act is applicable only in respect of transfer of capital assets being land or building or both registered by sale deed and it is not applicable for transfer of tenancy rights, though the same is capital asset but not being capital asset i.e. land or building or both. The learned CIT(A) considered the submission

ANAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIT CEN-III, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3895/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Anand Jain, The Commissioner Of बनाम/ A-13, Sterling Apartments, Income Tax , Central – Iii, V. 38, Peddar Road, Room No. 109, Mumbai – 400 026. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpj1890J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 263 of the 1961 Act also lacks merit as' the AO had while framing assessment order dated 29-12-2010 passed u/s 143(3) r.ws. 153A of the 1961 Act had made proper and detailed enquiries against which the assessee submitted detailed replies and arrived at conclusion to treat the gains arising from sale of share as capital gains