ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009 gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009-10. According to 10. According to the Assessing Officer transfer of development right took place under transfer of development right took place under section 2 (47) of the Act Act on the date of development agreement date of development

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PANKAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009 gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009-10. According to 10. According to the Assessing Officer transfer of development right took place under transfer of development right took place under section 2 (47) of the Act Act on the date of development agreement date of development

PANKAJ ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Enterprises, Jt. Cit Range-25(3), C/O Shankarlal Jain & Assoicates Pritashkar Bhavan, Bkc, 12, Engineer Building, 265, Vs. Bandra (E), Princess Street, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S Pankaj Enterprises, 25(3), Plot No. 1, Behind Ice Factory, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Mumbai-400072. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aacfp 3044 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 313/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4875/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Co No. 312/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 4876/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009 gain is liable to be taxed in assessment year 2009-10. According to 10. According to the Assessing Officer transfer of development right took place under transfer of development right took place under section 2 (47) of the Act Act on the date of development agreement date of development

BUNKIM FINANCE & INVESTMENTS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 263 of the Act, on the footing that the assessee is a regular trader in shares and securities was ultimately dropped by order dated 19.03.2010. In the notice issued on 26.11.2009, the CIT expressed the view that if the assessee is to be treated as a regular trader in shares and securities, the holding period of the shares does

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed

ITO (TDS) 2(5), MUMBAI vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boaz

sections of the Income- tax Act, 1961 i. e. in the hands of lessor as consideration taxable under the head Capital Gains u/s. 45, in the hands of lessee as Rentfor the purpose of deduction of tax u/s 194

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

ITO 18(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DR . VASANT J RATH TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainthe Income Tax Officer 18(2)(1), Room No.110, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ... Appellant

gains. 46. The AO has not brought any evidence on record to prove that the premium received is advance rent. To reach to this conclusion, the AO has to place some evidence on record to prove the same. In the absence of any evidence, to term it as advance rent would be only a presumption. Even if this presumption

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

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

M/S. ASARIA LALJI VADOR,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

capital gain was re-invested by purchasing Bonds eligible for exemption u/s. 54EC within the time permissible u/s 54EC of the Act and was eligible for claim as per law. c. Your appellant pleads that the exemption u/s 54EC claimed by the appellant and accepted by the AO be not disturbed and be allowed.” 6. At the time of hearing

NITAN CHHATWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC -5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

section 147 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a member of Chhatwal Family, who along with their relatives Kochhar family was running M/s. Viraj Group of Companies for about 20 years. Both the families were having equal shareholding in all the companies of M/s. Viraj Group. Following a dispute and differences between

DCIT-CC-5(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI NITAN CHHATWAL , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

section 147 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a member of Chhatwal Family, who along with their relatives Kochhar family was running M/s. Viraj Group of Companies for about 20 years. Both the families were having equal shareholding in all the companies of M/s. Viraj Group. Following a dispute and differences between

ANANT B. TAWADE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6362/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Anand B. Tawade, Ito – 17(3)(1), बनाम/ 106, Roop Rayon Mill Piramal Chambers, V. Compound, Lalbaug, Near Datt Mandir, Mumbai. Jijamata Nagar, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400 033. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Acdpt 9937A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. Assessee was confronted and requested to explain as to why the amount received in excess of principal capital contribution amounting to Rs.30,87,98,088/- from the said firm M/s. D.S. Corporation should not be treated as short term capital gain and brought

TOLANI SHIPPING CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CIR-5(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

194 Taxmann 203 and held that no disallowance can be made under Section 14A for expenses incurred for investments yielding tax-free income if the same was not disallowed in earlier years on the PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321. 4. Brief facts on this

ASST CIT CIR 13(2), MUMBAI vs. KUNVERJI NANJI KENIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the department and the cross objection filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

194 and 177 respectively for the assessment year 2004-2005. The value of purchase and sale of shares in total is at Rs. 20.08 crores and Rs.10.59 crores in this year as against Rs.8.23 crores and Rs.5.84 crores in the immediately preceding year. It shows that the pattern in which the shares were purchased and sold in this year

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1) , MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

194) wherein it has been held that the Income tax Authorities are not bound by the RBI for determining ALP? 3.6 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A.Y 2010- 11 & 2012-13 in stating that