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

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

PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD ( EARLIER KNOWNAS NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 7(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

gained an amount of Rs.8.23 crore which was treated as revenue income by the Ld. CIT(A) instead of capital receipt claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Suzler India Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 717 affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme

ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI vs. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD (FORMERLY KNWON AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD) (AS ULTIMATE SUCCESSOR TO NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

gained an amount of Rs.8.23 crore which was treated as revenue income by the Ld. CIT(A) instead of capital receipt claimed by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Suzler India Ltd. (2014) 369 ITR 717 affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme

ACIT-5(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

capital gain as per the provisions of section 71(2) of the Act. Since, Since, in the case of the current year lo current year losses under the head ‘income from head ‘income from other sources’ have been set have been set off against the income under the head of business or profession, w head of business or profession

ACIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, all the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

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

193 ITR 321 (SC))” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. xx xx 13. The jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act can be invoked by the CIT/PCIT where any order passed under the Act by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The sine qua non for exercising revision jurisdiction under Section

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain. Under the facts and circumstances and considering the discussions referred above, the addition of Rs. 2.32 crore is not warranted, Ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed. We find the various new facts and submissions are emerged in the course of hearing and the agreement was filed for the first time. Therefore considering the facts, submissions

DCIT - 1 (1) (2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain. Under the facts and circumstances and considering the discussions referred above, the addition of Rs. 2.32 crore is not warranted, Ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed. We find the various new facts and submissions are emerged in the course of hearing and the agreement was filed for the first time. Therefore considering the facts, submissions

RAJEN HARSHADRAI SANGHAVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26 (3) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and reassessment order is quashed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 466/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Rajen Harshadrai Sanghavi Vs. Ito 26(3)(1) 3, Garden View Apartment Kautilya Bhavan Dr. Ambedkar Road Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, West, Mumbai-400 080 Bandra East, Mumbai Pan : Aaips5226J 400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee/Appellant Against The Appellate Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Being Additional Cit/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) – 2, Siliguri (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2013 – 14 Dated 7/12/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer , Ward 26 (3) (1), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Wherein Claim Of Exemption Under Section 10 (38) Of The Act Of Rs. 1,657,645/– Was Denied, Was Dismissed. 2. Assessee Is Aggrieved & Is In Appeal Before Us Against The Assessment Order Denying The Exemption Under Section 10 (38) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Shows That Assessee Is An Individual Filed Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs. 269,000/– Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Of Long-Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 16,57,545/–. Roi

capital gain of Rs. 21,628,193 under section 10 (38) of the act. There is no such capital gain

ACIT (LTU-1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

section 35D and the arguments of both the parties, we are of the view that there are no change in the facts as in the last 7 years and, therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321, it would not be at all appropriate

BOMBAY FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT -14, , MUMBAI

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvk-Vk-La- 1645@Eaqcbz@2021 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Bombay Footwear Private Limited Deonar Village, Behind Telecom Factory, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb2162P Cuke Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

section 263 of the Act. The assessee in grounds of appeal has raised three grounds and sub ground (a) to (m) of ground no. 1. All the ground including sub grounds raised by the assessee are directed against the order of PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal. The ld. Counsel

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital receipt not chargeable to tax under section 50B of the Act. The ground raised by the assessee succeeds. The addition made under section 50B is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 6 of the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. Grasim Industries Ltd. In relation to Ground No.5 of the Assessee’s appeal and Ground No.13 of the Department’s appeal

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

gains. The treasury bills being capital asset, the surplus arising out of its redemption can neither be taxed as revenue receipt. The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted LA that this issue is decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

gains. The treasury bills being capital asset, the surplus arising out of its redemption can neither be taxed as revenue receipt. The learned Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted LA that this issue is decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 1995-96. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee

DCIT ,CC- 3 (3), MUMBAI vs. WELSPUN MERCANTILE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no\norder as to costs

gains at Rs.52,13,313/- and the same is also adjusted against the\nbrought forward loss. Thus, the income was computed as NIL.\n8. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee has earned dividend income of\nRs.2,98,11,715/- which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The\nAO noticed that

WELSPUN MERCANTILE LTD.(NOW MERGED WITH M/S. MGN AGRO PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 8 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no\norder as to costs

gains at Rs.52,13,313/- and the same is also adjusted against the\nbrought forward loss. Thus, the income was computed as NIL.\n8. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee has earned dividend income of\nRs.2,98,11,715/- which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The\nAO noticed that

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

capital receipt and, therefore, cannot be brought tax under the Act.\n\n60. The Ld. DR contended that the transaction of transfer of the unit was a slump\nsale, as agreed between the parties in the Framework Agreement. It was further\ncontended by the Ld. DR that the sanction to be obtained from the Hon'ble High\nCourt was only