VINAY PARMANAND HARIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT), WARD-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Ito, Int. Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Kempinski Private Residences Room No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Unit 40F Dki Jakarta, 10310 India Building, Nariman Point, Indonesia. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabph 4179 A Appellant Respondent

Capital Gain without providing the information collected directly by the AO to Gain without providing the information collected directly by the AO to Gain without providing the information collected directly by the AO to the assessee, when it is specifically requested by the assessee and the assessee, when it is specifically requested by the assessee and the assessee, when

BRAJ KISHORE SINGH,ANDHERI EAST vs. ASSESSING OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

capital Braj Kishore Singh gain (LTCG) of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 17,04,264/- for the AY 2015-16. 2. The brief facts as culled out from the order of lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual having residential status as non-resident during the FY 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year under consideration

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

SMT. SHREE JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, we hold that

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147. As long as there is objective tangible material (in the form of documents, relevant to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice." 6.5 Further, in the case of the assessee return was accepted u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and hence there was no question of change of opinion

INDUR THANWERDAS DADLANI,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-42, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed without any order as to cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarindur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. Cit Flat No. 4604, The Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, Mp Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar Bb Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aacpd5262D (Applicant) (Respondent)

capital gains on sale of unquoted shares. In the course of assessment proceedings, the submissions with respect to reasons as per CASS was perused. Considering all the aspects of the case & based on the submissions and evidence uploaded, explanation and reasoning offered by the assessee the returned income of the assessee for the A.Y 2020-21 was accepted" 8 Indur

ITO-41(4)(1), MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST) vs. CHIRANIA TRADING LLP, GOREGAON (EAST)

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

capital gains entries. (b) The Assessee had purchased shares of KDJH through off market transaction. (c) There was unusual rise in the quoted price of shares of KDJH that was not supported by any commercial principles or market factors. (d) The net worth of KDJH was negligible and the share prices have been artificially rigged to reach an unusual high

ITO-41(4)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CHIRANIA TRADING LLP, MUMBAI

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 150/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITA No. 993/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITA No. 992/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer 41(4)(1), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra Appellant Vs Chirania Trading LLP, Mumbai 914, Corporate Annex, Near Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Lane, Goregaon East Mumbai-4000

capital gains entries. (b) The Assessee had purchased shares of KDJH through off market transaction. (c) There was unusual rise in the quoted price of shares of KDJH that was not supported by any commercial principles or market factors. (d) The net worth of KDJH was negligible and the share prices have been artificially rigged to reach an unusual high

ITO-41(4)(1),MUMBAI, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI vs. CHIRANIA TRADING LLP, GOREGAON (EAST),

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

capital gains entries. (b) The Assessee had purchased shares of KDJH through off market transaction. (c) There was unusual rise in the quoted price of shares of KDJH that was not supported by any commercial principles or market factors. (d) The net worth of KDJH was negligible and the share prices have been artificially rigged to reach an unusual high

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. N ROSE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

capital gains shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place and the provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of this sub-section, shall apply for the purpose of determination of full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Explanation.—For the purposes of this

ITO(TDS)-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. N ROSE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.6328/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Ito (Tds)-2(3)(1), Room No.909, 9Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 ............... Appellant V/S N Rose Developers Private Limited, C-1 Building No.3, Sumer Nagar Chs Ltd. ……………… Respondent S.V. Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai -400092 Pan : Aaccn5680J Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.Dr

capital gains shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place and the provisions of this Act, other than the provisions of this sub-section, shall apply for the purpose of determination of full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Explanation.—For the purposes of this

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains as determined under general provisions of the Act shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which such transfer took place and shall be computed as per provisions of the Act without taking into account this proposed provisions. It is also proposed to define the following expressions "competent authority", "specified agreement" and "stamp duty

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains as determined under general provisions of the Act shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which such transfer took place and shall be computed as per provisions of the Act without taking into account this proposed provisions. It is also proposed to define the following expressions "competent authority", "specified agreement" and "stamp duty

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains as determined under general provisions of the Act shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which such transfer took place and shall be computed as per provisions of the Act without taking into account this proposed provisions. It is also proposed to define the following expressions "competent authority", "specified agreement" and "stamp duty

SUGEE SEVEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gains as determined under general provisions of the Act shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which such transfer took place and shall be computed as per provisions of the Act without taking into account this proposed provisions. It is also proposed to define the following expressions "competent authority", "specified agreement" and "stamp duty

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

194-1 of the Act: 7. Ground No. VII: Deduction u/s 35DD of the Act: 3. Whereas the Revenue in their grounds of appeal has raised following grounds:- Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

194-1 of the Act: 7. Ground No. VII: Deduction u/s 35DD of the Act: 3. Whereas the Revenue in their grounds of appeal has raised following grounds:- Vodafone Idea Limited (Formerly Idea Cellular Limited) 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in and circumstances

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

194) of the Act. The Revenue could not bring any material to deviate\nfrom the decision so rendered by the Tribunal on this issue. Accordingly,\nrespectfully following the decision cited supra, the disallowance made in\nrespect of roaming charges under section 40(a)(ia) and section 40(a)(i) are\ndeleted. Accordingly, Ground No.4 raised in assessee's appeal

GLEN MORGAN D COSTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO INT TAX WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

capital gain was offered. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide material compliance with Rule 37BA of the Rules regarding TDS credit claim by a person other than the deductee. However, it also noted that the assessee's wife had filed a rectification application for her share.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 143(1)", "Section 154", "Section 194